At 3:53 PM -0700 7/24/08, Olasov, Ben wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan Russler
Hi Samson,
If "denote" = "describe" in your sentence, then I withdraw my objection.
But "denote" /= "describe". These two words
were intended to be, and are, used differently.
Consider the
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan Russler
>
> Hi Samson,
>
> If "denote" = "describe" in your sentence, then I withdraw my objection.
But "denote" /= "describe". These two words were intended to be, and are, used
differently. Consider the sentence, "The matrix P contains the entries
Hi Christine,
EL++, which may shortly
become a new 'profile' of OWL 2 that is, a sublanguage of the
standard.
That's really interesting to hear, and would be a very welcome
development!!!
I have to admit I was not aware of these effort to allow OWL 1.1 etc.
to contain EL++ as a subl
On 7/24/08 2:22 PM, "Kashyap, Vipul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is a great suggestion. And more interestingly, the drug ontology
> mapping
> work we are doing in the COI task could be a concrete use case for this
> conversion.
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/ClinicalObservationsInter
Hello John,
On 7/24/08 1:35 PM, "John Madden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Chime,
>
> Thanks for coming up with this project task proposal relating to
> conversion of legacy terminologies to OWL/RDF, it's very exciting.
No problem. And BTW, I've added a Wiki for this particular task propo
Jyoti,
Thanks for the reference. I agree the paper makes some good points.
A promising alternative to deal with legacy graph-based formalisms
with hierarchies and otherwise sparse axiomatization (of which SNOMED
is one example) and still provide "upward mobility" to OWL is the
RDFS(FA) pro
Hi Samson,
If "denote" = "describe" in your sentence, then I withdraw my objection.
My concern is that the term "class" as used in UML doesn't seem to mean
the same thing as you are describing for a class in OWL. For instance, I
don't see the same concept of "resource" in the definition of cla
Dan Russler wrote:
Hi Samson,
We are getting closer.
1) In the reference you site..."A class is the descriptor for a set"...
2) Earlier, you stated that "semantics of a class as denoting a set of
instances."
I believe these two statements represent the "apples" and "orange
> I really like your idea of picking a specific subdomain, like drug
> terminology, and using that to test out the pitfalls/possibilities.
>
> (Actually, I think very domain-specific ontolgies have, as a
> rule, the
> strongest likelihood of short-term practical utility.)
I think this is
Hey Chime,
Thanks for coming up with this project task proposal relating to
conversion of legacy terminologies to OWL/RDF, it's very exciting.
I really like your idea of picking a specific subdomain, like drug
terminology, and using that to test out the pitfalls/possibilities.
(Actually,
I have an outstanding action item regarding the logistics for our upcoming
W3C HCLS IG Face-to-Face. It is taking place during the 2008 W3C Technical
Plenary [1] in Pullman Cannes Mandelieu Royal Casino, Mandelieu, (FR).
The detailed schedule is available [2]. Our time slot is:
Monday 20 Octobe
I agree with you below, except I think it's peoples' "interpretation" of
the RIM that causes the confusion, e.g. "The focus of the RIM classes had
primarily been structure and not semantics." Since RIM is communicated in UML,
UML semantic rules apply, and one needs to be strict on the UM
See below...Yes let's move on to more examples...Dan
Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
I agree with you below, except I think it's peoples'
"interpretation" of the RIM that causes the confusion, e.g. "The
focus of the RIM classes had primarily been structure and not
semantics." Since RIM
Hi Vipul,
I agree with you below, except I think it's peoples' "interpretation" of
the RIM that causes the confusion, e.g. "The focus of the RIM classes
had primarily been structure and not semantics." Since RIM is
communicated in UML, UML semantic rules apply, and one needs to be
strict on t
1) In the reference you site..."A class is the descriptor for a set"...
2) Earlier, you stated that "semantics of a class as denoting a set of
instances."
I believe these two statements represent the "apples" and "oranges" you
referenced:
Statement 1) is the traditional "a class describes the
*** CALL FOR PARTICIPATION ***
Semantic technology moving towards interoperability:
Join the 10th International Conference on Electronic Commerce
ICEC08 brings together the top of the scientific research community in
e-commerce and e-business from all over the world
Innsbruck, Austria, August
16 matches
Mail list logo
