Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Extended prefix map support #496

Open
joeflack4 opened this issue Feb 5, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

Extended prefix map support #496

joeflack4 opened this issue Feb 5, 2024 · 7 comments

Comments

@joeflack4
Copy link
Collaborator

joeflack4 commented Feb 5, 2024

Overview

There are namespace situations that simply cannot be handled by a bimap. For these situations (e.g. prefix or uri_prefix synonyms), we need extended prefix map (EPM) support.

Context

We've already experienced issues where lack of this support caused issues:

@matentzn
Copy link
Collaborator

matentzn commented Feb 6, 2024

We need a clear driving usecase for this. I think the parse command absolutely needs to support EPMs, perhaps the merge command as well, but other than that, I am not convinced. For publishing sssom files, we certainly need the good old unambiguous bimap.

@joeflack4
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Aren't synonyms a clear enough use case? What do people do when they have synonyms? Would we ask them to merge them in preprocessing?

@matentzn
Copy link
Collaborator

matentzn commented Feb 7, 2024

Aren't synonyms a clear enough use case? What do people do when they have synonyms? Would we ask them to merge them in preprocessing?

Can you give an example? Unfortunately the word synonym has too many meanings. Are you talking about the case that the same user wants to use ICD10:Q10 and ICD10CM:Q10, and both refer to the same URI?

@joeflack4
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I mentioned in the OP about accounting for either prefix or URI prefix synonyms. Your example is of a prefix synonym. But yes, that is the primary case I am concerned about / think will come up more often.

@matentzn
Copy link
Collaborator

matentzn commented Feb 7, 2024

My argument against this is that there are few reasonable scenarios where synonyms should be allowed. I would need to see a real case (other than merge and parse), for publishing a mapping set with synonyms.. I can't think right now of any good reason to do it.

@joeflack4
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hmm I see. Well if that's the case, then I'm out of ideas and you could probably close this issue. I'm just surprised that we would advocate for EPMs generally, in OAK, etc, but can't find a use case for it in SSSOM!

@matentzn
Copy link
Collaborator

matentzn commented Feb 8, 2024

I am not dying to be dismissive or anything - if you have a concrete use case describe it and we will talk about it. Any scenario that in involves merging data from multiple sources needs EPMs, because there may be inconsistent use of IRIs and CURIE prefixes. Hence their need in sssom parse and oak/semsql (where you may interact with merged ontologies).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants