Re: [HCLS] Bridging Ontologies - with Foundational Ontologies

[William Bug]

It is true statistical analysis of repositories expressing their semantics according to the same formal systems (e.g., RDFS, SKOS, OWL, etc.) utilized a metathesaurus of heavily utilized terms can get you a long way -  But - it's not clear to me whether we'll be able to evolve highly automated semantically-formal neuroinformatics analysis systems.  I'm not thinking of reasoning oriented systems, but simply analysis of semantic info a la the ubiquitious use of Gene Ontology in the bio-molecular informatics world. Cheers,. Bill On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote: Great to hear that! It really seems that most of the promises of semantic web ontologies are only realised when top-level ontologies like DOLCE are used. Maybe we should evaluate the potential use of DOLCE or BFO for the BioRDF tasks? [VK] Whereas I agree with the use of foundational ontologies, I may not agree with the sweeping generalization above. Significant potential can be realized by using not so formally organized resources such as the UMLS for instance. ---Vipul Bill Bug Senior Research 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 accompanying 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.