On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Hugh Glaser<[email protected]> wrote: > Excellent Alan, thank you for pointing this out, both as a general point and > the specific case. > I had puzzled over the equivalences, since they seemed implausible (just > given the number), but not worked out why (I guess the lack of the backlink > did not help). > However they, along with good stuff, came from a source I chose to trust, and > so I went with it. > The caveat is useful in general - I know of other sameas that I might > consider erroneous/dubious but are widely accepted. > Another example would be the sameas between the opencyc URIs and the dbpedia > ones, although things of different type, which was a topic of discussion on > this list a while ago. > The sameas.org service is more liberal than the one we use for rkbexplorer, > as it is to help people find things, although I do consider some sources too > error-prone to use. > Not sure how to describe such policies, and certainly not in RDF, as expected > for a SW service.
I would say: Never assert sameAs. It's just too big a hammer. Instead use a wider palette of relationships to connect entities to other ones. -Alan > Best > Hugh > > On 20/07/2009 13:40, "Alan Ruttenberg" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Hugh Glaser<[email protected]> wrote: >> And just in case you haven't found it, a load of these hard-won equivalences >> are collected together at sameas.org, such as >> http://sameas.org/?uri=http://data.linkedct.org/resource/intervention/51572 > > Caveat emptor, some of these hard won equivalences will be hard > losses. The sameAs assertions are incorrect. They equate a description > of the values of an independent variable in a clinical study to one of > the drugs administered in the intervention, the drug Ramelteon. > > "Subjects demonstrating low sleep efficiencies and prolonged sleep > latencies, will be randomly assigned to continue to receive SHI > accompanied by either placebo or Ramelteon (8 mg). Matching placebo > will be obtained and the medication pre-packaged and ordered based on > the randomization results" > > It is not straightforward to figure this out, either - there is no > obvious backlink that leads you back from > http://data.linkedct.org/resource/intervention/51572 to the source of > the information http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00576927 > where the quote used as the value of linkedct:description is found. > > While a person browsing this will be able to disambiguate, if you > depend on these equivalences for any sort of reasoning you will land > up dubious conclusions. > > -Alan > > > >> Hugh >> >> On 20/07/2009 05:03, "Oktie Hassanzadeh" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Amrapali Zaveri <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am attempting to merge 3 databases: (i) Clinicaltrials.gov >> <http://clinicaltrials.gov/> , (ii) Geonames <http://www.geonames.org/> , >> (iii) FDA <http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ucm135162.htm> based >> on ontologies. >> >> There are RDF Triples already defined for (i) http://linkedct.org/index.html >> and there is already an ontology present for (ii) >> http://www.geonames.org/ontology/ . However, there is no ontology present >> for the FDA database. The field "Zip Code" is common for all the three >> databases. >> >> >> If the FDA datasets are not published as RDF yet, we can certainly take the >> lead in publishing them as a part of the Linking Open Drug Data [1] project. >> >> [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG/LODD >> >> LinkedCT already provides links to Geonames, but please let me know if you >> see any missing links. >> >> >> Regards, >> Oktie >> >> >> Could anyone suggest possibilities of how to merge the three databases, >> based on ontologies? >> >> Thanks, >> Regards, >> Amrapali J Zaveri >> >> >> >> >> > >
