On Mar 30, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello Pat, All,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Pat Hayes <pha...@ihmc.us> wrote:
On Mar 29, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
I am assuming that these classes all make a commitment about what
their instances mean, so users could declares instances and rely
on
that commitment to be useful, right?
As I have been taken to task (offline) for agreeing with you,
allow me to
intercede. On this point, I think everyone is right. Yes, classes
are
things
that have, or can have, instances, and that is all that a class
is, in
effect. (RDFS makes this quite explicit by _defining_ classes to be
things
in the range of the rdf:type property.) On the other hand, it is
certainly
correct that ontologies can say a lot about classes without ever
mentioning
instances. On the other hand, it is also the case that, were
someone to
(not
unreasonably) wish to connect such classes with their instances,
the
resulting conclusions should be correct, and if they were not,
then this
would be a serious critique of the ontology.
I have no idea what the person who took you to task was thinking,
but it seems related to the ongoing controversy over whether
substances should be instances or classes.
Which seems like a much more interesting topic, indeed.
In BioPAX, we have a class physical entity with subclasses such as
protein. EGFR would be an instance of protein, and we could say in
BioPAX that EGFR has a sequence. (I would argue it should rather say
that EGFR matches a sequence pattern, but that is another story.)
The problem is that there are certain assumptions which BioPAX
users
are encouraged to follow, such as (1) if two physical entities refer
to the same record, they are identical (2) if two physical entities
refer to different records in the same source, they are not
identical
(3) if they are not identical, they have no overlap.
I don't think these assumptions are even asserted in the ontology
or
the documentation, but some BioPAX developers actively encourage
users
to rely on them ("Come on, they are true at least 95 percent of the
time"), and BioPAX lacks support for cases where they break down.
The fix I advocate is straight-forward: let the language be
explicit
about whether above assumptions are met or not and add support for
cases where they are not.
Hard to disagree with that.
This would include a property that expresses
that EGFR includes human EGFR, but since EGFR is not a class, it
would
not be owl:subClass.
Others advocate a different approach: make all reference to
substances references to classes
Classes of what? That is, what would be the ultimate elements of
these
classes and subclasses? I think it is vital to get this straight
before
proceeding. Possible answers include: molecules (so EGFR is the
class of all
molecules that would be classified as an EGFR molecule); pieces of
'stuff'
in the mereological sense ("aggregates" as someone called them in
this
thread); protein-types, where a type is something that can always be
subdivided into subtypes according to some criterion, possibly one
yet to be
discovered; kinds of substance, where a substance is something that
can
partake in mixtures or compounds to create other kinds of
substance, and
pieces of which occupy space. And no doubt there are others, also.
The
point, I should perhaps emphasize, is not to refer to individuals
of these
various kinds, but to pin down a particular way of thinking that
can be used
consistently to justify ontological design decisions.
, e.g. EGFR would be a subclass of
protein. This, they say, is "more natural".
It fits with the first model, above, in which we are always talking
about
classes of molecule. Not so well with the 'substances' view.
The obvious benefit is that it makes it clear that two distinct
substances may have overlap, since two distinct classes may have a
non-empty intersection, e.g. human EGFR and phospho-EFR would have
the
intersection human phospho-EGFR (assuming EGFR to be defined to
include phospho-EGFR).
That suggests the 'type/subtype" way of thinking.
The obvious drawback is that everything becomes more complicated
since instead of properties of instances we would have property
restrictions over classes (e.g. instead of "EGFR matches
EGFRSequence"
we would say "Every element of EGFR matches EGFRSequence"). That
alone
is a serious issue, since typical users like it as simple as
possible.
I don't think this is a serious issue, in fact. It is as easy to
state the
property restriction than the property, in OWL; and in any case,
simplicity
in this sense is largely a matter of good human interface design,
and it is
very bad engineering to base ontological decisions on interface
design.
But that is not the most serious issue.
OK
The most severe problem seems to be that the class approach seems
to
be incompatible with (1) observables being about statistical
ensembles
and (2) populations being defined by location, not individual
membership - at least, if we want to avoid extreme complexity.
(note: in what follows, all numbers are made up and probably not
realistic)
For example, how would we describe that "the concentration of ATP
in
the mitochondrion is (3.2 +/- 0.7) mol per liter"? What does the
concentration inhere in?
Im not sure what this means. Are we talking about a particular
mitochondrion, or mitochondria in general? I guess the latter. In
which
case, the answer to the question is, it inheres in the class of
Mitochondria, which is presumably a subclass of CellularStructures
or some
such.
Maybe the concentration is just a proxy for the particle number?
Say, the particle number of ATP in the mitochondrion is 24.7 +/-
1.6.
What does that number inhere in?
Same answer, I guess. Though I don't know what a particle number
is, so this
really is a guess.
Can we restrict ourselves to cases of definite particle numbers? In
Systems Biology, we often use differential equations to model how
things change over time, and that assumes they change gradually. But
nevertheless, let us say that the number of ATP in the mitochondrion
is 23. What does that number inhere in? One particular set of 23
molecules? But are we talking only about one particular cell, or are
we making a more general statement that applies to many cells?
I don't know, what are you wanting to say? General statements are
made (in
OWL) by relating properties to classes (everything in this class
has this
value of this property...)
A new ATP molecule is created, increasing the number of ATP
molecules to 24. The original set of 23 molecules still exists, and
its number is still 23. But that's not the number of ATP molecules
in
the mitochondrion any more. Also, what happens when an ATP
molecule is
destroyed, or wanders off to some place else?
Well, these are issues of describing change and time. That is a whole
ontological area that has been fairly extensively explored. But if
you want
to be able to describe change and dynamics, you will have to
introduce time
explicitly into your ontological framework one way or another.
There are no
magic bullets for avoiding the resulting complications.
Finally, what happens when the number of ATP molecules in the
mitochondrion drops to zero? What does the zero inhere in - in the
empty set?
No, in the mitochondrion (or mitochondria) which have no ATP in
them. This
is an old issue, thoroughly explored. (What kind of flock does a
shepherd
have who has sold all his sheep?)
What if the number of ADP in the mitochondrion also drops
to zero, does the zero also inhere in the empty set? How many empty
sets are there?
There is only one empty set. But in the example under discussion,
this would
be an issue only if there were no mitochondria in the universe, a
case I
assume we can safely ignore. (And, BTW, in many ontology languages
- though
not, regrettably, OWL-DL - there can be a number of distinct empty
_classes_.)
Maybe in principle, it is possible to reformulate the problem and
build up a description from scratch, relying on terms such as
molecule, that would allow to express the above scenarios
accurately.
But that approach would make a complex system of related
restrictions
necessary to make even the most simple assertions used in Systems
Biology.
Indeed, i suspect that Systems Biology would be an extremely complex
ontology, if formalized adequately. (Even supposing the state of the
formalizing art is up to the task, which I doubt.) Note however
that this
does not mean that every assertion made using the concepts of the
ontology
need be complex, only that the defining ontology for the concepts
will be.
Fortunately, the defining ontology only has to be created once.
What I think we need instead is a term that refers to "ATP in the
mitochondrion", a term that refers to "(24.7 +/- 1.6)", and a simple
property to connect these two in one statement.
In other words, an equation without any definitions of the terms
used in it.
Sure, go ahead, but please don't call it an ontology.
Pat
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
BioPAX Integration at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/biopax)
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494
3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
