|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | *[[The_BioBricks_Foundation:Standards/Technical/Exchange | Data exchange standards]] |
| *[[The_BioBricks_Foundation:Standards/Technical/Resources | Technical Resources]] | | *[[The_BioBricks_Foundation:Standards/Technical/Resources | Technical Resources]] |
| *[[The_BioBricks_Foundation:Standards/Technical/BBF_WetLab_Challenges | BBF WetLab Challenges]] | | *[[The_BioBricks_Foundation:Standards/Technical/BBF_WetLab_Challenges | BBF WetLab Challenges]] |
|
| |
|
| = Data Exchange Standards =
| | The data exchange discussion has moved to it's own sub-page. |
| | |
| This working group aims to define standards for the description of biobricks and formats / technologies for the exchange (or networking) of biobrick-related data.
| |
| | |
| This falls into the following questions (Discuss and answer!):
| |
| | |
| 0. Aim / Application scenarios
| |
| | |
| 1. What is a Biobrick?
| |
| | |
| 2. What is the data model needed to describe a biobrick?
| |
| | |
| 3. What is the best format / technology for exchange?
| |
| | |
| == Aim / Application scenarios for this standard ==
| |
| | |
| Application scenarios [please discuss]:
| |
| | |
| * data exchange between local / central part registries
| |
| <sub>
| |
| Example: "We have a local registry and want to publish the finished Biobricks to the MIT registry."
| |
| See [[ http://brickit.wiki.sourceforge.net/ | BrickIt project]] for an example local registry system.
| |
| </sub>
| |
| | |
| * download biobrick data into local computer programs
| |
| <sub>
| |
| Example: "We want to simulate the behavior of device X and Y with the GePasy program." or "We want to develop bio-circuit design programs."
| |
| </sub>
| |
| | |
| * find suitable parts
| |
| <sub>
| |
| Example: "I need a 10-fold PoPs amplifier (input range 0 - 8 PoPs) that works in S. cerevisiae at 25 C temperature; response time doesn't matter but protein production load needs to stay below 100000 AA consumed; Sub-components must not interfere with the MAPK pathway [enter reactions]."
| |
| </sub>
| |
| | |
| * distributed annotation of Biobricks
| |
| <sub>
| |
| Example: "We have measured the toxicity of 1000 BioBricks from MIT and two other registries. Can we cross-link this data with the registy?"
| |
| </sub>
| |
| | |
| == What is a Biobrick? ==
| |
| | |
| === Definition ===
| |
| | |
| A final definition is beyond the scope of this group. For data exchange purposes we adopt the following draft:
| |
| | |
| * BioBricks™ are standard DNA parts that encode basic biological functions. [http://www.biobricks.org/ see BBF home]
| |
| * A BioBrick has a unique DNA sequence.
| |
| * Basic parts are defined by this DNA sequence.
| |
| * Composite parts are defined as "sequence" of Basic BioBricks, along with intervening "scar" sequences.
| |
| | |
| === Issue: BioBrick formats ===
| |
| | |
| (Raik)
| |
| You can have the "same" Biobrick in different formats, e.g. with prefix/suffix from one of the two suggested protein fusion formats. Now the sequence is exactly the same, but having a sample of biobrick X with biofusion flanks may be of no use if the other biobricks in you freezer are formatted differently. *Does a different prefix / suffix create a different biobrick?* To the assembling experimentalist in the lab it does; to the user of gene synthesis it doesn't really; the system designer or analyst couldn't care less...
| |
| | |
| === Issue: closely related BioBricks ===
| |
| | |
| (Mac)
| |
| should there be a one-to-one relationship between a part 's functional definition and its sequence? What if you introduce a silent mutation into a BioBrick - is there a "different sequence, different part" doctrine, even if the two are functionally equivalent? ... Is this a source code vs. compiled code issue?
| |
| | |
| (Raik)
| |
| We right now seem to follow the unspoken rule that a part is defined by its exact DNA sequence. Any modification creates a new part, which is kind of logical to the experimentalist because it maps a biobrick to exactly one DNA fragment (which you either have in your freezer or not) and vice versa. Options:
| |
| | |
| * keep/fix the sequence-based definition but introduce relations like "ortholog to", "equivalent to", etc.
| |
| * define "reference biobricks" and link variants to them
| |
| * find a more abstract definition ... and create the concept of BB 'implementation' or 'instance'.
| |
| | |
| (Mac)
| |
| Perhaps we could do both? Assuming a biobrick always has one and only one dna sequence, perhaps we could build the data model to support organizing biobricks into families or sets of functionally related parts? Each family could have one canonical biobrick associated with it that works, is available, and exemplifies the function that the family is supposed to have.
| |
| | |
| == What is the data model needed to describe a biobrick? ==
| |
| | |
| Following Ralph's and Barry's mails, Raik suggests to split this into the following sub-topics (re-organize at leisure).
| |
| | |
| === minimal Biobrick information ===
| |
| | |
| The set of minimal information aims to (1) uniquely identify a biobrick, (2) provide sufficient detail for its application and handling in the lab and during assembly, (3) describe its origin/source and references for human study.
| |
| | |
| * unique ID
| |
| * DNA sequence / basic building blocks
| |
| * format ??? (see issue above)
| |
| * short description for humans
| |
| * long description for humans
| |
| * target chassis
| |
| * "collaborating"/complementing biobricks if any
| |
| * feature annotation
| |
| | |
| * experience flag
| |
| * ? bug tracker ?
| |
| * ? version / supersedes / history ?
| |
| | |
| * source genebank ID if applicable (with position?)
| |
| * source organism
| |
| * source lab/person
| |
| * references (web / literature)
| |
| | |
| === Biobrick classification ===
| |
| | |
| Categorization and anything that helps (1) fishing this part out of the registry and (2) deciding what extra information may be needed.
| |
| | |
| ==== Intrinsic Classification ====
| |
| | |
| Intrinsic classification covers those aspects of Biobrick classification which are defined by the Biobricks themselves. For these the primary focus is defining the vocabularies used to describe Biobricks to the outside world. Broadly speaking, this can include:
| |
| | |
| * Identifiers
| |
| * Biobrick taxonomy: defining types or species of Biobricks based on composition, function, etc.
| |
| | |
| Possible intrinsic classifiers include:
| |
| | |
| * DNA category: [ AA coding, RNA-coding[m-/t-/nc-/mi-/si-], regulatory [promoter,rbs,terminator,enhancer], unknown, ...]
| |
| | |
| ==== Extrinsic Classification ====
| |
| | |
| Extrinsic classification refers to those aspects of Biobrick classification which are attributed to Biobricks from external sources or references. The focus is defining the vocabularies for those aspects of the outside world which are related to biobricks.
| |
| | |
| * Functional Performance Parameters
| |
| * Function...
| |
| | |
| === Characterization ===
| |
| | |
| Quantitative data about the part, important for design and implementation of devices containing it,
| |
| | |
| A) independent of the parts category:
| |
| | |
| * genetic stability
| |
| * ?
| |
| | |
| B) depending on the parts category.
| |
| | |
| * Static device behavior
| |
| * Dynamic device behavior
| |
| * Device compatibility (with other devices, environmental conditions etc.)
| |
| * Device interactions (including quantitative data)
| |
| * Device reliability (RNA half-life, protein half-life)
| |
| * Power requirements of the device
| |
| | |
| === Further annotation ===
| |
| | |
| * Higher level descriptions for automated design & simulation?
| |
| * references to High-throughput data ?
| |
| * references to outside, non-standardized information about this part
| |
| | |
| == What is the best format / technology / architecture for exchange? ==
| |
| | |
| Tying ourselves to a format too early will make us not have a clear model in mind, and will cause us to hack up the format. It is best to do model, then format.
| |
| | |
| Once the data model is firmly in place, the format should follow as the one that best implements that data model. For example, if we settle on an RDF-like 'everything is a relationship triplet' approach, then some format that can handle these triplets would be most appropriate. In addition, with a model like this, there are XML-based and more human-readable formats that can both implement the model equally well.
| |
| | |
| A few ideas about possible architectures are below; I am sure there are others.
| |
| | |
| === Context ===
| |
| | |
| For reference, I'm considering a piece of web-accessible software, like the MIT Registry or BrickIt, that has BB data in some sort of persistence layer (be it a relational DB, an object DB, an XML store, a hash store like CouchDB/SimpleDB, or a triple store), offers a human-facing UI, and a programmatic interface for 3rd party software integration that allows *read/write access* with authentication and authorization rules.
| |
| | |
| === XML/DB backend, REST API ===
| |
| If we end up storing BB descriptor documents in XML of a custom schema (like CellML/SBML), or a relational database (like BrickIt does), and want the tools that store such data to expose a programmatic API, I believe that a RESTful architecture might have some advantages. In particular, REST is a simpler approach to data access than SOAP; REST is easy to work with since it's simply HTTP, and software support is plentiful.
| |
| | |
| * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REST Wikipedia article]
| |
| * [http://www.xfront.com/REST-Web-Services.html Introduction to REST Web Services]
| |
| * [http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm Ch 05 of Fielding's thesis (theory behind REST)]
| |
| | |
| Note that this approach involves a layer of abstraction over the persistence layer. The disadvantage is, compared to offering a straight up SQL/etc interface, is the additional step necessary to write the layer. However, you'll have to design a layer of abstraction anyhow for the UI (such as a web application serving HTML) and frameworks such as Django and Rails can make it easy to expose alternative content types (XML, JSON) in parallel with your human-consumable HTML data views.
| |
| | |
| * [http://jamesgolick.com/resource_controller Rails resource_controller plugin]
| |
| * [http://code.google.com/p/django-rest-interface/ Django rest interface]
| |
| | |
| The advantage is that you get to decouple the internal representation from the public API. This allows you to modify your underlying data store (database, schema, etc.) and not break the interface that your clients are using. It also allows your application to perform data validation, and allows you to write that in the higher-level language of your application rather than in SQL triggers/keys. Also, you do not have to repeat this validation logic across both your application and in the database. It also affords you more power in the authentication/authorization department than simple database logins. This approach (doing validation/auth in the application later) is that of an [http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ApplicationDatabase.html Application Database] and essentially precludes you from offering a raw SQL interface.
| |
| | |
| === Triple backend, SPARQL/SPARUL API ===
| |
| If, on the other hand, we elect a triple-based storage format, query languages such as SPARQL and SPARQL/Update (aka SPARUL) offer great power.
| |
| | |
| * [http://www.slideshare.net/fabien_gandon/sparql-in-a-nutshell SPARQL in a nutshell] - presentation
| |
| * [http://jena.hpl.hp.com/~afs/SPARQL-Update.html SPARQL/Update]
| |
| | |
| Note that, with this approach, the tool could expose the underlying RDF as a SPARQL/SPARUL endpoint, and both the application's web interface and the API interface could work against that. The point here is that triples are likely flexible enough to withstand a "schema change" and providing a SPARQL-adhering endpoint is a layer of abstraction that allows you to swap out the underlying triple store if necessary . I am not sure how authentication/authorization and data validation happen in this scenario, as I am less familiar with it.
| |
| | |
| For rolling up your sleeves and hacking around, you might like to check out object/RDF modeling libraries such as:
| |
| * [http://www.activerdf.org/ ActiveRDF] (Ruby)
| |
| * [http://oort.to/ Oort] (Python)
| |
| * [http://arc.semsol.org/ Arc] (PHP)
| |
| | |
| The following articles contain a good deal of discussion on the topic of building web applications for the semantic web:
| |
| * [http://thefigtrees.net/lee/blog/2007/01/using_rdf_on_the_web_a_survey.html Using RDF on the Web: A Survey]
| |
| * [http://thefigtrees.net/lee/blog/2007/01/using_rdf_on_the_web_a_vision.html Using RDF on the Web: A Vision]
| |
| | |
| == Suggestions ==
| |
| Please fill in these sections with details
| |
| | |
| === create a new XML format ===
| |
| | |
| === adapt existing CellML, SBML XML formats ===
| |
| | |
| === create a custom file format ===
| |
| | |
| === use Turtle/N3 notation for semantic web documents ===
| |
| ==== Example of N3 ====
| |
| I somewhat share the reservation about completely new file formats, but the
| |
| non-readability and general nastiness of XML is also an issue. A good solution,
| |
| IMO, would be to use the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notation_3 Notation3 format] developed
| |
| by the semantic web folks. It is concise, human-readable and editable (i used it
| |
| myself some years ago) *AND* is equivalent to XML. That means there is a well
| |
| defined translation back and for and many libraries and tools do the conversion.
| |
| Being semantic web, it also solves the linking problem (everything is a link).
| |
| | |
| Quick Example:
| |
| | |
| <pre>
| |
| # shortcut definition for frequently used ressources ...
| |
| @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
| |
| @prefix bbf: <http://biobricks.org/ontology/1.1/>.
| |
| @prefix harvard: <http://harvard.edu/registry/parts#>.
| |
| | |
| # define a biobrick hosted at this address
| |
| :BBa_0001
| |
| rdf:type bbf:biobrick;
| |
| bbf:sequence "AAACCCGGG";
| |
| bbf:similarTo [:BBa_0003, harvard:BBa_J1000, :BBa_00010].
| |
| | |
| # add information to a biobrick defined elsewhere
| |
| harvard:HBB_J1000
| |
| rdf:sameAs :BBa_0001.
| |
| </pre>
| |
| | |
| OK, one can argue about human-readability but it's at least possible to
| |
| understand and edit these documents (and much better than the equivalent xml).
| |
