Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[bioontology-support] Hierarchy services

ben leinfelder leinfelder at nceas.ucsb.edu
Thu Sep 23 17:07:50 PDT 2010


Hi Trish - 
Thanks for your response. I imagine I'll have an even better understanding once the ontologies are processed for use with the hierarchy services.  Is the mapping algorithm a separate process and does it require action on my part? 
It sounds like term mapping is meant to eek out equivalences that are not formally defined in the OWL files rather than to aid navigation among children of a shared superclass. We'll likely want to take advantage of this sort of mapping feature as more and more domain-specific extensions to OBOE are created where the authors have [unwittingly] defined equivalent/overlapping concepts. 
In terms of "ontology groups", I've gone ahead and placed both of the OBOE ontologies in the "Semtools" BioPortal project. While this doesn't enforce any formal relationship, at least it keeps the group organized. Perhaps someday I can use the search services to return a subset of ontologies by project.
-ben

On Sep 22, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Trish Whetzel wrote:

> Hi Ben,
> 
>> 1. How can I get my ontologies processed so that the hierarchy services can be invoked on them. Here is an example service call I might use for my OBOE SBC ontology: http://rest.bioontology.org/bioportal/concepts/children/44257/Sample
> 
> We routinely process ontologies for use with the Hierarchy web services. I'll double-check with the developers, but I believe OBOE SBC should be processed in the next round.
> 
> 
>> 2. How are imports handled?
>> 	a) As we've discussed previously, our project uses a base "OBOE" ontology that various ontologies are meant to extend (via import). The classes in the extension ontology are subclasses of the base ontology and I'd like to be able to access these children no matter which extension ontology defines them (assuming they are registered in BioPortal). So far I've uploaded the OBOE base ontology and the OBOE SBC ontology that extends it.
>> 	b) When invoking hierarchy services must I use the ontologyId in which the concept was _defined_ or can the concept be defined in a parent ontology that is imported?
> 
> For OWL ontologies that use the import statement, the ontology loaded into BioPortal will also include the import and it's content.
> 
>> 	c) Incidentally there is yet another level of indirection in that 'Entity' (defined in oboe-core as imported in oboe) is one example of a superclass of which I'd like to get all children. These children should be gathered from any registered extension ontology that has subclasses of 'Entity'. Is this the behavior of BioPortal?
> 
> The Get all children web service is based on the ontologyId or ontology version id depending on which variation of the web service is used.  The child terms returned will be those found in the version of the ontology specified in the web service call.
> 
>> 	d) Given two or more extension ontologies that import our OBOE ontology, do the extension ontologies 'share' the imported OBOE ontology?
> 
> If the import was designated in Protege with the import statement, then each extension will contain the contents of the imported ontology.
> 
>> 	e) Currently there does not appear to be any formal BioPortal relationship between OBOE and the OBOE SBC extension (other than what is in the OWL files themselves). Perhaps this will change once the ontologies are processed for use with the concept hierarchy services?
> 
> Correct, there is not a formal relationship between OBOE and OBOE SBC as they are loaded as separate ontologies. Processing for use with the Hierarchy web services will not provide this linkage. When the ontologies are processed via our term mapping algorithm, the terms that are common between the ontologies will be displayed in the mappings tab.
> 
> I've added Natasha to this thread as well for additional thoughts on the idea you previously suggested WRT to "groups" of ontologies.
> 
> Trish
> 
> 
> 




More information about the bioontology-support mailing list