Hi All,There are examples of systems that strive to separate the lexicon from the ontology, so as to ensure one particular lexical view of the underlying semantics doesn't "lock out" either humans or machines who do not "understand" that lexicon. Few are perfect, but many have effectively handled
This isn't quite right. Suppose that there is a constraint that
consistsOf's domain is business units/organization, and worksFor's
domain is Person. Then what you suggest would infer that
:Mikhail Khlopotov :consistsOf :Semantic Web Inference
which probably not what is intended.
OWL 1.1
Hi Chimezie --
Thanks for your most helpful posting.
At 01:00 PM 8/22/2006 -0400, you wrote:
Actually, I believe by virtue of being of the SHOIN family of Description
Logics [1] that OWL-DL & RDFS can express this [transitive over] through
role hierachies and transitive roles
So, does it r
For this sort of modeling I would recommend, at least for the moment,
some kind of macro facility.
Since my own tool is based on common lisp, and works off a version of
the abstract syntax that is expressed as s-expressions, I can and do
use the common lisp macro faciltiy to implement this
I agree, consistent use of terms makes life easier for machines and for
humans too when the terms have been agreed on, learned, and understood.
Unfortunately, this takes a lot of effort and dedication from the
humans. Learning a whole ontology before anything can be done is a bit
like reading
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:28:03 -0600, Larry Hunter wrote:
In my experience, many complex knowledge modeling projects benefit
from the use of metaclasses. For example, if the domain of a
relationship is limited to several specific classes, it makes sense
to model those classes as members of a
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:28:03 -0600, Larry Hunter wrote:
> In my experience, many complex knowledge modeling projects benefit
> from the use of metaclasses. For example, if the domain of a
> relationship is limited to several specific classes, it makes sense
> to model those classes as members of
[Apologies for cross-posting. Please redistribute to anyone who might be interested]
Dear friends,
I am pleased to announce the new release of the Cell Cycle Ontology (Release 0.5: http://www.cellcycleontology.org/). In this release, more terms have been integrated from the main sources (in part
Actually, I believe by virtue of being of the SHOIN family of Description
Logics [1] that OWL-DL & RDFS can express this through role hierachies
and transivite roles (both of which are part of [2] SHOIN: S - Role
transitivity, H - Role hierarchy)
[1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publica
Larry --
On the other hand... There are really simple problems that cannot be
computed in *any* version of OWL.
I believe that "transitive over" [1] is one such.
HTH, -- Adrian
[1] http://www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/TransitiveOver1.agent
--
Internet Business Logic (R)
Executab
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 10:05 -0400, John Barkley wrote:
> I also think we should consider a recommended practice of using OWL Lite or
> DL where possible (i.e., when the knowledge base can be expressed in no more
> than DL).
I don't want to get into a religious war here, but I think the
advantage
On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:04 AM, Mork, Peter D.S. wrote:I second the request for specific examples because, in my experience, most mediators rely on a logical data model with queries (SQL or XQuery) mapping the underlying data models into the mediated model. In performing the cross-model mapping, at s
>>just a small datapoint to what you say. Although I essentially agree,
we
>>should not forget that even OWL-Lite requires a Description Logic
>>reasoning engine (if one wants to use reasoning, that is).
>
>I also think we should consider a recommended practice of using OWL
Lite or
>DL where possi
Mathias, Ivan,
>just a small datapoint to what you say. Although I essentially agree, we
>should not forget that even OWL-Lite requires a Description Logic
>reasoning engine (if one wants to use reasoning, that is).
I also think we should consider a recommended practice of using OWL Lite or
DL w
Yes - as you and Amit point out, there are many very successful applications and meta-analyses that have been performed with "isolated" ontologies.Where the difficultly comes in is when you want to: a) interlink the results from these separate studies b) formulate additional hypotheses based on the
Sorry, Vipul.Yes - this was clear to me on the agenda page. Where I went wrong was to examine all the other ontology related Use Cases - many under the BioRDF tasks - in the interstices of the Wiki related to this task. I've posted links to those on my "Refined OTF Use Case" page - which is reall
I second the request for specific examples
because, in my experience, most mediators rely on a logical data model with
queries (SQL or XQuery) mapping the underlying data models into the mediated
model. In some cases (e.g., TAMBIS), the mediating model is actually an
ontology, but this is
Yes - but only for NeuronDB and CocoDat.
That is - unless the inherent lexicons used by these two resources
begin to evolve into something closer to a community-wide, shared ontology for
the domains they cover - which may very well be in the offing.
There is nothing ab
Bill,
The wiki URL was on the agenda page.
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/ParkinsonUseCase
From: William Bug
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
8:28 AM
To: Kashyap,
Vipul
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: [BIONT]
Teleconference 22nd
We are using mediation technology within the BIRN project as
well. It has many ways in which it can solve some of the problems we're
discussing.
My fear is every new repository requires an new mapping/registration to
the mediator and/or shared ontology. This can be a very frag
>> This is the approach adopted by caBIG. Individual data models (or
>> schemata) are related to a common ontology. By itself, this doesn't
>> allow one to rewrite queries (because of tacit assumptions present
in
>> the respective data models?), but the hope is that development of
>> query-media
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 info
Personally I have seen/developed plenty of applications that use
domain specific/narrow ontologies but do not use any foundational/
top level ontologies.
Amit Sheth
Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
Great to hear that! It really seems that most of the promises of semantic
web ontologies are only realis
> This is the approach adopted by caBIG. Individual data models (or
> schemata) are related to a common ontology. By itself, this doesn't
> allow one to rewrite queries (because of tacit assumptions present in
> the respective data models?), but the hope is that development of
> query-mediator
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 seman
Hi Vipul,I've finally filled out my agenda item a bit. Unfortunately, I had a very difficult time trying to figure out where the relevant prior work was on the Wiki. I think I found the important Use Cases - Don & Kei's work on the NeuronDB to CocoDat connection along with the Parkinson's Use Cas
We are using mediation technology within the BIRN project as well. It has many ways in which it can solve some of the problems we're discussing.My fear is every new repository requires an new mapping/registration to the mediator and/or shared ontology. This can be a very fragile system over time,
Yes - but only for NeuronDB and CocoDat.That is - unless the inherent lexicons used by these two resources begin to evolve into something closer to a community-wide, shared ontology for the domains they cover - which may very well be in the offing.There is nothing about this particularly mapping th
ANNOUNCEMENT:Registration for the second Semantic Web for Healthcare and Life Sciences F2F in Amsterdam, October 3-4, 2006, is now open. Please register your meeting participation and your hotel reservation through the WBS site below:http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38539/hclsigf2fams/The cut-off for
>> Creating explicit connections between all similar and/or identical
>entries
>> in two schemas is an arduous task that is impractical to do
manually.
>
>[VK] Will mapping each of these schemas to an ontology and then using
the
>ontology to mediate further queries help alleviate the problem?
>
>-
Hi All,I think Chimezie and Matthias are definitely on the right path here.As I see it, the bottom-up approach to semantic KE/KR that SemWebTech is so suited to must be wedded to the top-down approach using an upper level ontology such as DOLCE or OBR (version of BFO designed for use in biology**).
Matthias,
I am glad you are raising these issues.
We need to broaden the F2F task to RDF(S) vs XML(S) vs OWL
In the meanwhile, is it possible for you to post use cases to the Ontology Task
Force wiki, that in your experience, illustrates the issues below?
Regards,
---Vipul
> I wonder what it
> 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 ont
Chimezie,
Is it possible for you to write up this use case and put it on the Ontology Task
Force Wiki?
There could be multiple approaches for bridging ontologies, some pragmatic and
some formal using resources such as the UMLS or DOLCE.
Thanks!
---Vipul
> -Original Message-
> From: [
> Creating explicit connections between all similar and/or identical entries
> in two schemas is an arduous task that is impractical to do manually.
[VK] Will mapping each of these schemas to an ontology and then using the
ontology to mediate further queries help alleviate the problem?
---Vipu
Matthias,
just a small datapoint to what you say. Although I essentially agree, we
should not forget that even OWL-Lite requires a Description Logic
reasoning engine (if one wants to use reasoning, that is). For many,
even OWL Lite is too complicated for that. On the other hand, making a
simple (i
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:08:36 -0400, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
> Discuss tasks for discussion at F2F in Amsterdam. Some examples
> are: 1. OWL vs RDF (John Barkley?)
I wonder what it is that makes people choose between RDFS or OWL. It seems that
people seem to think that RDFS is of better use for mo
I also think that smaller foundational ontologies like DOLCE are the key to
interoperability between ontologies. It seems like the only way to ensure good
interoperability is the agreement on some basic structures and design patterns.
When two OWL ontologies are based on two totally different w
38 matches
Mail list logo
