On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:53 PM, John Madden wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I don't want to speak for Eric, and I'm not even sure I've
accurately represented his point here. Nor am I sure that they *are*
different scenarios.
Instead of saying they are or aren't, let me throw out a scenario
that concerns
Don't get me wrong, Davide, I really want this stuff to work. What we
really need is evidential stuff, not leave things to intuitions.
On 2 February 2010 04:15, Danny Ayers wrote:
> On 2 February 2010 03:29, Davide Zaccagnini wrote:
>> I was rather trying to lighten a little concerns over possib
On 2 February 2010 04:30, Joanne Luciano wrote:
>>> . I suppose what I'm saying is we have to allow for ignorance
>>> in these systems, which is virtually impossible to express, even in
>>> OWL.
>
>
> Ignorance can be expressed in at least 2 ways in OWL... Disclaimer: this is
> off the top of my h
. I suppose what I'm saying is we have to allow for ignorance
in these systems, which is virtually impossible to express, even in
OWL.
Ignorance can be expressed in at least 2 ways in OWL... Disclaimer:
this is off the top of my head and it is late ...
1, Open world assumption
2, Granularit
On 2 February 2010 03:29, Davide Zaccagnini wrote:
> I was rather trying to lighten a little concerns over possible 'semantic
> drift' as new ontologies are applied over or in addition to those specified
> by the first author of the graph. No doubt the first formalization must be
> free from am
I was rather trying to lighten a little concerns over possible 'semantic drift'
as new ontologies are applied over or in addition to those specified by the
first author of the graph. No doubt the first formalization must be free from
ambiguity and 'ignorance', but in the real clinical IT word ch
I'm sorry Davide, but your description seems to put this stuff at an
unambiguous level, but we all know that's not true. The practitioners
may use a good fact base (in the uk it's a booklet called mims) but
when the scalpel hits, it's a judgement call. Wrapping such human
things into software isn't
In a clinical IT system actionable data (diagnoses, allergies, medications etc)
are typically quite unambiguous at the application level. Similarly,
information in documents is almost always clear to a physician who reads it.
This is to say that for most clinical documents the ontology that can
I agree completely!
Cheers,
Peter
On 2 February 2010 09:26, Andrea Splendiani
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think there are two aspects related to semantics.
> One is interpretation (like: the world is flat by Mark). And this is in the
> ontology or, if you want, even in queries.
> But there is also the
On 2 February 2010 09:08, Danny Ayers wrote:
> Peter, I agree with 99% of what you said but this bit bothers me a bit:
>
>
>> People regularly misinterpret medical documents currently by examining
>> them without the proper medical training. Adding superclasses etc or
>> deleting elements as they
Hi,
I think there are two aspects related to semantics.
One is interpretation (like: the world is flat by Mark). And this is in the
ontology or, if you want, even in queries.
But there is also the fact that you "name" things when you expose a resource.
The resource itself, or some info in more d
Peter, I agree with 99% of what you said but this bit bothers me a bit:
> People regularly misinterpret medical documents currently by examining
> them without the proper medical training. Adding superclasses etc or
> deleting elements as they feel necessary is just formalising the
> process wher
Here's the reminder for Wednesday's LODD telcon.
Cheers,
Susie
== Conference Details ==
* Date of Call: Wednesday February 2, 2010
* Time of Call: 11:00am Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), 16:00 British Summer
Time (BST), 17:00 Central European Time (CET)
* Dial-In #: +1.617.761.6200 (Cambridge,
On 2 February 2010 08:16, Jim McCusker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:53 PM, John Madden wrote:
>>
>> Hi Oliver,
>> (For a medical document, it might not be *me* that insists on this
>> claim; it might be my employer/hospital.
>> They don't want people attributing meanings to the
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:16:30 -0800, Jim McCusker
wrote:
The employer/hospital cannot prohibit someone else's
ignorance.
sigh... how true!! ;-)
Mark
--
Mark D Wilkinson, PI Bioinformatics
Assistant Professor, Medical Genetics
The James Hogg iCAPTURE Centre for Cardiovascular and Pulm
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:53 PM, John Madden wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>(For a medical document, it might not be *me* that insists on this
> claim; it might be my employer/hospital.
>They don't want people attributing meanings to the document other
> than those they have had a chance
>
Hi Oliver,
I don't want to speak for Eric, and I'm not even sure I've accurately
represented his point here. Nor am I sure that they *are* different scenarios.
Instead of saying they are or aren't, let me throw out a scenario that concerns
me, and in the context of which they *might* be differe
On 1 February 2010 19:30, John Madden wrote:
> We had an interesting call in TERM today. One of the topics I would like to
> boil down to the question "When does a document acquire its semantics?" or,
> "when does a document come to mean something?"
>
> I argued the (admittedly intentionally) ra
Hmmm, John,
I'm wondering what criteria you are using to evaluate the equivalence
of the result of the conversion function / algorithm.
I endeavor in my personal communication to separate observation from
judgment, which to me is roughly equivalent to representation and
semantic binding.
Pat, what a concidence! I keep getting those character strings too!
Sometimes I play a little game where I convert one of them into a different but
completely equivalent character string, and send it back to the original author.
I've noticed that sometimes the author responds to my string with a
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:30 PM, John Madden wrote:
> We had an interesting call in TERM today. One of the topics I would like to
> boil down to the question "When does a document acquire its semantics?" or,
> "when does a document come to mean something?"
>
> I argued the (admittedl
I agree it was a great telcon today. I was glad to be on it.
And I love this conversation too.
Ya know what I mean? Wink Wink?
Does anyone ever know what the other means? Whew.
Allow me to quote one of the great minds:
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are
not
On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Mark Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:12:35 -0800, Solbrig, Harold R. > wrote:
If, however, you wish to *communicate* with other folks about, say,
science, it would be highly desirable to overlay a *shared*
ontology-of-choice (vs. personal) that, perhaps,
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:12:35 -0800, Solbrig, Harold R.
wrote:
If, however, you wish to *communicate* with other folks about, say,
science, it would be highly desirable to overlay a *shared*
ontology-of-choice (vs. personal) that, perhaps, would be focused on
shared knowledge about the re
If, however, you wish to *communicate* with other folks about, say, science, it
would be highly desirable to overlay a *shared* ontology-of-choice (vs.
personal) that, perhaps, would be focused on shared knowledge about the real
world.
-Original Message-
From: public-semweb-lifesci-re
I love this conversation :-)
I have a scrap of paper pinned to the filing cabinet beside my desk that
says "The World Is Flat - Mark Wilkinson & Ben Good, in the Pub, May 26,
2006". That was the night that I feel I truly came to understand where
the "semantics" are in the "semantic web".
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:30 PM, John Madden wrote:
> We had an interesting call in TERM today. One of the topics I would like to
> boil down to the question "When does a document acquire its semantics?" or,
> "when does a document come to mean something?"
>
> I argued the (admittedly intentionall
Can we perform a mashup on the two positions?
Someone who created a SPARQL end point has, by some means, created an
interpretation (graph) to query based on some document. Perhaps other
SPARQL end points would have different interpretations?
Just a tenth EURO...
Jack
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:3
We had an interesting call in TERM today. One of the topics I would like to
boil down to the question "When does a document acquire its semantics?" or,
"when does a document come to mean something?"
I argued the (admittedly intentionally) radical view that documents have no
semantics whatsoever
Dear all,
This is a quick reminder that the deadline for submissions to FWCS [1],
the Future of the Web for Collaborative Science, to be co-located in
WWW'10, is coming up.
We have opened submission access to EasyChair [2] and we are going to
publish our workshop proceedings in Nature Precedi
30 matches
Mail list logo
