On 30 Mar 2009, at 17:04, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello Bijan, All,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Bijan Parsia
<bpar...@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
On 30 Mar 2009, at 16:23, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
That is probably the most used phrase in the Semantic Web
community.
And least adhered to?
Most used as an empty cliche.
I certainly wasn't using it that way, as, believe, my concrete
examples showed.
What's your problem with providing application requirements?
None, but that was not the topic.
You asked for advice. I gave what I needed in order to give you advice.
I have no idea what that paradigm is.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?
id=1064.1066&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618
Still no idea.
Because? You could read it? You couldn't get it? You don't care to?
ASK/Tell (i.e., characterizing a KR system functionally in terms of
questions answered in response to information "told" to the system)
is pretty bog standard.
An ontology should be independent of a particular application.
First, there's a big difference between being tied to a particular
application and being informed by intended applications. I
sincerely doubt
the general utility of an ontology designed without *any* thought
to the
class of applications for which it is intended to be used. Advice
that is
not at all informed by the broad characteristics of the
applications for
which the ontology shall be used is worthless.
Class of applications = Systems Biology applications
That's not a useful description. It doesn't give any application
features.
For example, an editor for descriptions of Systems Biology
experiments is very different than a computer aided tutotiral.
As far as I can tell it's a format converter and visualizer. No
ontologies
needed at a first approximation.
Uses an ontology to integrate BioPAX and SBML. If you know an
alternate way, you should publish.
Isn't the issue *how* it does that integration?
But I see we can't productively interact, so I regret having
responded and will now stop.
Cheers,
Bijan.
