Ditto to Kei's note at the bottom - with a few qualifiers added in
the interstices.
BTW - I'd really appreciate hearing from folks what tool they prefer
for viewing, editing, and creating graphical representations of OWL
instances. I've tried several tools from oXygen through Protégé, and
several other Open Source tools in between and am not completely
satisfied with any one solution. There a a few tools available from
Dr. Hendler's MindSwap site (http://www.mindswap.org) which I like,
particularly, the OWL SVG Viewer (when I can get it to work right on
my PowerBook). It would be very helpful to hear what others have
found to be the most useful GUI-based tool(s) for human-based OWL doc
manipulation.
Cheers,
Bill
On Jun 12, 2006, at 1:02 PM, kei cheung wrote:
Jim Hendler wrote:
At 9:36 -0700 6/12/06, Miller, Michael D (Rosetta) wrote:
Hi Kei,
Once an OWL ontology is published there are no typos!
Huh? If you are being facetious, please include a smiley. :-)
If one wants to
use the ontology, one must conform to the definitions.
term strings are not definitions, they are merely a specific lexical
tag (likely one of many) for communicating with others (humans or
algorithms) you are referring to a specific entity. From the
algorithm vantage, there had better be a unique identifier
(preferably a URI) for that entity - from which you could derive a
definition, if the ontology curator(s) have given one.
cheers,
Michael
or produce a new, backward compatible version which makes the
change...
(or inform the author of the original to fix it in his next release)
Communication with the curating authority is critical.
One thing this does teach us is the importance of having the
ontology name space document be at a set URI - this packaging up
OWL in zip files is very harmful to the whole idea of the Seamntic
Web, since the "same" ontology in two different places is really
two different ontologies in actuality, since the URIs are difference.
Absolutely, yes! It is also extremely harmful to the more top-down
effort to build a constellation of biomedical ontologies covering
distinct knowledge domains which are meant to be shared throughout
the community.
The effort to consolidate/coordinate these efforts via NCBO (aka
cBiO) and the ontologies themselves within the OBO Foundary will help
greatly in promoting this approach - both having a unique URI/
namespace for each ontology, as well as providing the community a
communication channel for correcting mistakes, completing incomplete
entity descriptions, and generally posting requests to expand and/or
contract knowledge domain coverage in a particular sub-domain of a
given ontology. The OBO user-oriented mailing lists set up for each
specific ontology - in particular, those for PATO & FuGO, are very
active and can be used quite effectively to ensure the additional
value any user seeks to add to an ontology can - via the curation
process for that ontology - can eventually become available to us all
from a single, canonical source.
I've actually suggested to some folks in the OWL community an easy
fix for this, am hoping it will get into one of the notes...
-JH
I think this are very good points, trying to identify (legal,
technical, and social) impediments to semantic web technologies. :-)
-Kei
Bill Bug
Senior Analyst/Ontological Engineer
Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics
www.neuroterrain.org
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
2900 Queen Lane
Philadelphia, PA 19129
215 991 8430 (ph)
610 457 0443 (mobile)
215 843 9367 (fax)
Please Note: I now have a new email - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email and any accompany attachments are confidential. This information is
intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any
review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email communication
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please
notify us immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete all
copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
