This brings up an interesting issue -- how ontological evolution would
impact mapping or integration of overlapping ontologies. I believe it's
quite a research challenge. We might need to incorporate the notion of
versioning into the ontological structure. For example, what versions of
the protein classes/instances can be mapped between two ontologies. Just
my two-cent thought.
Cheers,
-Kei
John Rumble wrote:
An unwritten rule about higher level ontologies is that they reflect
our knowledge today, not tomorrow. As knowledge evolves, the upper
level ontologies, especially, must also evolve. The example of the
concept "protein" is very apropos here. We can view it from
functional, structural, integrative angles, and I am sure there are a
bunch more. Then think about how our "concept" of a protein in each of
those views has evolved over the last 10 years, 20 years, 75 years.
The problem is evident.
At whatever level an ontology is developed, someone smarter or with
more insight or standing on the shoulder of giants will use that
onotlogy as a building block for a new and better higher level view of
nature. We have not reached the end of science yet.
In my days of leading similar standards developments, some of the best
progress we made was when we banned discussions of (1) higher-level
ontologies (though we called them something else back in those old
days) and (2) acronyms.
For those of you who have requested more references on my previous
e-mail about experiment description, it will have to wait a few more
days. Unfortunately bioinformatics have not solved my kidney stone
issues, which severely limit my ability to pull the requested
information together.
John
Dr. John Rumble
Technical Director
Information International Associates
Oak Ridge TN
www.infointl.com <http://www.infointl.com>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
301 963 7903 (Home Office)
301 502 5729 (Cell)
865 298 1251 (Oak Ridge Office)