It is quite material. Probably more important scientifically then all the rest.
No one will care what we do if we give them nonsense answers, and worse tell
them they are "sound and complete" :)
[VK] From the point of view of completeness/soundness of the algorithm it
doesn't matter...
Of c
Well, we probably agree, but I don't want to let this one stand:
On Mar 15, 2007, at 10:23 PM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
Whether we "lied" to the KB is immaterial.
It is quite material. Probably more important scientifically then all
the rest. No one will care what we do if we give them nonsense
It depends on how you define soundness and completeness...
In this context, the "algorithm" is our query processing/data integration
approach.
The difference is that it is contextualized to the Integrated DB/KB.
i.e. Our "algorithm" is sound/complete if for all queries Q posed on the
integrated
Don't forget Monday's BIONT/BioRDF call.
Please don't forget that the US is already on daylight saving.
Call Details:
* Date of Call: Monday March 19, 2007
* Time of Call: 11:00am Eastern Time
* Dial-In #: +1.617.761.6200 (Cambridge, MA)
* Dial-In #: +33.4.89.06.34.99 (Nice, France)
* Dia
Hi Luis,
I think I understand what you are doing with the properties. You have
(in abstract syntax)
Class(Subiculum_ventral_part_stratum_radiatum partial)
ObjectProperty(Subiculum_ventral_part_stratum_radiatum-has
range(unionOf(alpha2_subunit_nicotinic_receptor
Hi Luis,
Thanks for this! I'm starting to have a look...
In the following, owl:range should be owl:Class, I think.
rdf:resource="#Subiculum_ventral_part_stratum_radiatum"/>
The class named "_" isn't defined - was this in
Hi All,
I helped Mihai Bota design the prototype BAMS xml protocol (for anatomical data)
for the purpose of facilitating export of its contents into Ontology servers.
(e.g.: QIS system. In very alpha version: http://os-qis.med.yale.edu ), There
some vocabularies and simple ontologies can be autom
I put the updated bams instance style model on the wiki page
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/HCLSIG_DemoHomePage_HCLSIG_Demo
The new version modifies the old version according to Alan's suggestions
from tuesday's f2f.
jb
This is very interesting!! Alan I totally agree with you that your goal is
definitely a good one to have.
[Alan] > Put another way, the goal might be stated as wanting to get both
*all* available answers to our questions, and *only* correct answers
to our questions, and both the above contri
Soundness isn't the same, because we can lie (tell wrong facts) to
the reasoner, which will (soundly) repeat back the lies.
That's the sort of thing that happens when we use is_a instead of
part_of in our ontologies.
-Alan
On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
Just to cla
> Just to clarify, because "sound and complete" is often used in a
> different sense: I don't mean sound and complete in the sense it is
> used in describing the properties of reasoning algorithms. I meant this
> statement with respect to the quality of answers to questions asked
> within our dom
Just to clarify, because "sound and complete" is often used in a
different sense: I don't mean sound and complete in the sense it is
used in describing the properties of reasoning algorithms. I meant this
statement with respect to the quality of answers to questions asked
within our domain of
Alsn,
Am in agreement with the general argument presented in this e-mail and would
like to propose a small experiment:
1. Let's do the data integration exercise with the current modeling approaches.
2. Repeat (1) with enriched modeling and descriptions.
3. For a set of queries, compare and cont
13 matches
Mail list logo
