Chris is right, but the IS itself has no view on the matter. it does,
I believe, play some tricks inside making instances classes to do the
reasoning. What the user sees are instances. When we use the IS to
classify proteins, we have a class "p53" and we translate all the
genes in a genome in
> With InstanceStore, the genes and gene products are treated as owl
> individuals - belonging to the ABox. However, the ontologically
> correct representation recognises that p53 is the name of a universal
> that is instantiated in trillions of cells, and not the name of an
> individual region o
Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, William Bug wrote:
>
>> Ditto, Kei!!!
>>
>> Of course, at the heart of this - in addition to the very important
>> issue Chemezie introduced re: ACL at the graph node level, if that is
>> practical - is the discussion we've been having reg
All
I forwarded the email to Ian Horrocks, he of reasoner fame, and his
answer is below.
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Dmitry Tsarkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Ian Horrocks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance issues with OWL Reasoners (Was RE: Playing
with sets in OWL...)
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
This paper for example, managed to get the Gene Ontology and, I think,
all of GOA into a DL form and reason over it in a, er, reasonable
amount of time. So scalability to 10's of thousands of T-box and 100's
of thousands of A-Box's is possible.
Some folks at IBM's China Research lab
have been doing some work in the area which they published [1] at
the 1st Asian Sem Web Conference. It is my understanding that the code
they are using is part of the IBM Integrated Ontology Development Toolkit
made available through the Alphaworks program
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Drew McDermott wrote:
[Chimezie Ogbuji]
Seems to me the biggest barrier is in coming to a consensus on
an appropriate placeholder vocabulary and not neccessarily on
determining
all the various ways in which a person (and their related data)
could be
expre
> KV> 1. ABox reasoning (reasoning about instance data). Scalability
> KV> here is being achieved here by leveraging relational database
> KV> technology (which is acknowledged to be scalable) and mapping
> KV> OWL instance reasoning operations to appropriate SQL queries on
> KV> the u
> [Chimezie Ogbuji]
>
> Seems to me the biggest barrier is in coming to a consensus on
> an appropriate placeholder vocabulary and not neccessarily on determining
> all the various ways in which a person (and their related data) could be
> expressed in a patient record.
I'm not sure I'm agre
> "KV" == Kashyap, Vipul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KV> OWL reasoners support two types of reasoning:
KV> 1. ABox reasoning (reasoning about instance data). Scalability
KV> here is being achieved here by leveraging relational database
KV> technology (which is acknowledged to be sc
Here are the agenda suggestions from the BioRDF group for the F2F meeting.
1. A mini-hackathon where everyone brings their RDF data, and we work on
integrating the data sets together.
2. We'd like Alan Ruttenberg to give a presentation on URI resolution in
ontologies. This is a topic that we
Are at
http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-hcls-minutes.html
Ivan
--
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
OWL reasoners support two types of reasoning:
1. ABox reasoning (reasoning about instance data). Scalability here is being
achieved here by leveraging relational database technology (which is
acknowledged to be scalable) and mapping OWL instance
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the specific needs here, but I wonder
if
> authoritative identification of individuals is really an argument
for a
> ID-oriented naming convention - such as LSID.
>
With regard to identity, has anyone here had experiece
with I-names [1]. These are OASIS "human-
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>> Absolutely. However, concensus on a placeholder class for a
>> person doesn't prevent you from extending it with other
>> attributes (or relationships with other classes) at a latter
>> point - that's one of the advantages of the expressiveness of
>> Description Logics.
> Absolutely. However, concensus on a placeholder class for a
> person doesn't prevent you from extending it with other
> attributes (or relationships with other classes) at a latter
> point - that's one of the advantages of the expressiveness of
> Description Logics.
>
> Seems to me the big
OWL reasoners support two types of reasoning:
1. ABox reasoning (reasoning about instance data). Scalability here is being
achieved here by leveraging relational database technology (which is
acknowledged to be scalable) and mapping OWL instance reasoning operations to
appropriate SQL queries on
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, William Bug wrote:
Ditto, Kei!!!
Of course, at the heart of this - in addition to the very important issue
Chemezie introduced re: ACL at the graph node level, if that is practical -
is the discussion we've been having regarding URIs - how to create them,
broadcast/d
Ditto, Kei!!!Of course, at the heart of this - in addition to the very important issue Chemezie introduced re: ACL at the graph node level, if that is practical - is the discussion we've been having regarding URIs - how to create them, broadcast/discover them, and guarantee their uniqueness.The ind
Hi Helen, Vipul, et al.,
I think we are at a significant point of discussion here. That is, we're
talking about how to possibly bridge life science and health care
through semantic web (not just applying semantic web technologies to
health care and life sciences independently/separately). The
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
An important issue that is likely to come up soon in healthcare is the
integration of a person's genetic information in the electronic medical record.
So, would it make sense to extend the person class to hold a person's genomic
information?
Absol
An important issue that is likely to come
up soon in healthcare is the integration of a person’s genetic
information in the electronic medical record.
So, would it make sense to extend the
person class to hold a person’s genomic information?
Another big issue is one of privacy. How
Kei
You raised a good point here.
Indeed, person can have multiple roles
in a given organization or scenario. Capturing this multiplicity in the
"person" ontology should not be a problem - you simply add a
triple for each role the person assumes.
These roles are likely to change over
time,
Referring to the passcode: I sent a mail to Carol a few days ago sending
her a copy of the text version of the form. She can use that for
registration by filling it and send it to Scott, Marjolein and me
Ivan
Karon Mee wrote:
> Tonya,
>
> I am trying to get some idea of times for the meeting in
Tonya,
we should settle today how many extra break-out rooms we will need (and
when) during the meeting, because we may have to make some extra
reservation. The core meeting room is relatively large for the number of
people we have, so 1-2 break out groups may sit down in the far end
corner of the
Hi,
may be this was notified before : there is an ontology derived from FOAF wich
could be used for a research community:
"Semantic Campus: A FOAF extension"
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/events/foaf-galway/papers/pp/semantic_campus/
The namespace is "http://semanticcampus.org/ns/sc#"; -
For experiment publishing ontology, I need a Person class to represent
anybody involved in the research community. Here are the list of
required properties in the current SPE specs. I specifically
point out the closest FOAF terms if available and their mismatched
datat ypes.
foaf:name
foaf:titl
27 matches
Mail list logo
