On 22 March 2013 14:38, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell
> wrote:
>> On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion (r
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell
>> wrote:
>> > On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg
>
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell
> wrote:
> > On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll
> wrote:
On 22 March 2013 15:15, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
>> On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> I am not sayin
On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> >>
>
> I am not saying that science presented as fact is infall
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll
> wrote:
> >>
> >> To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion (rathole?)
> >> about owl:sameAs
> >> I tend to a view that t
Alan,
that is a superb message, very well-articulated
I will ponder it.
And as I said I don't really want to keep doing this theoretical dance and look
forward to more substantive conversations.
Jeremy
On Mar 21, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:
On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>>
>> To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion (rathole?)
>> about owl:sameAs
>> I tend to a view that there are diminishing returns in terms of levels of
>> indirection he
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion (rathole?)
> about owl:sameAs
>
Don't think so. It is a simple application of the pattern of having
information about something. The statements don't have to be true.
>
> Yes,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>
> Jerven suggests:
>
> "instead of saying chrM it would have been solved by
> using
> http://my.lab.org/confidential/patientXXYYZZ/genome/sampleXX/ChrM/assemblyTTv43/VariantCalls5
> "
>
> rather than continuing the philosophical/theologic
On 2013-03-21, at 6:00 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> "instead of saying chrM it would have been solved by
> using
> http://my.lab.org/confidential/patientXXYYZZ/genome/sampleXX/ChrM/assemblyTTv43/VariantCalls5";
> In this way of thinking, I am not really interested in an assembly of ChrM
> for
Jerven suggests:
"instead of saying chrM it would have been solved by
using
http://my.lab.org/confidential/patientXXYYZZ/genome/sampleXX/ChrM/assemblyTTv43/VariantCalls5";
rather than continuing the philosophical/theological threads ….
I am interested in this practical question.
chrM as an ad
ESWC 2013
Call for Participation
http://2013.eswc-conferences.org/
ESWC 2013 is the major Europe-based conference on Semantic Technologies
and the Semantic Web. It is the ideal venue for discussing the latest
scientific results and technology innovations and is equally relevant to
researchers,
Well, I don't quite know what to say. I feel a bit like a designer of cheap,
workable, everyday town cars, and I have a customer who wants a Ferrari.
I agree, Jeremy, you have a hard problem here. It sounds like you need
statistical or probabilistic methods to keep track of these small likeliho
On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:58 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 12:04 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2013, at 4:04 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>> On 03/17/2013 10:02 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:26 PM, David Booth wrote:
> [ . . . ]
> Read the spec: http://www.w3.org/T
On 3/21/13 12:26 PM, Michel Dumontier wrote:
my problem largely lies in the "identifies" relation between a URI and
a document
Yes, but in the context of RDF based Linked Data, a single HTTP URI can
in fact denote one thing in a manner to uses indirection (implicit or
explicit) to identify a
my problem largely lies in the "identifies" relation between a URI and a
document. and generally, that it wouldn't represent as a triad, but a
bilateral relation between an entity (identified by uri) and a document
(which refers or describes it).
m.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Kingsley Ideh
On 3/21/13 10:57 AM, Michel Dumontier wrote:
Kingsley,
I think you raise good points. I also nominally speak of entities,
their attributes and the relations that hold between them. But I think
your diagram is somewhat misleading. URIs do denote (can stand in the
place of) entities of interest
Kingsley,
I think you raise good points. I also nominally speak of entities, their
attributes and the relations that hold between them. But I think your
diagram is somewhat misleading. URIs do denote (can stand in the place of)
entities of interest in order to refer to and/or describe them. If you
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Phillip Lord
wrote:
> This is a broken definition of "good" to my mind. It suggests that we
> should make all the distinctions that we can make, all the time.
> Unfortunately, this means that everyone bears the cost of the complexity
> all the time also.
True but t
Agree with Kingsley.
The challenges have been really reflected throughout the entire trail of these
conversations, and lots of valid points have been made from diverse
*perspectives* presented as the only way of thinking about it. We need to have
a clear strategy based on rules and definiti
On 3/20/13 10:58 PM, David Booth wrote:
Thus, to be very clear, under the existing RDF Semantics
specification, a given URI does *not* necessarily map to only one
resource.
True, but I don't think the statement above always provides the clarity
intended.
"Resource" is a synonym of "Entit
This is a broken definition of "good" to my mind. It suggests that we
should make all the distinctions that we can make, all the time.
Unfortunately, this means that everyone bears the cost of the complexity
all the time also.
A good data model should be an accurate reflection of biology. But
23 matches
Mail list logo
