rules. Each
approach has its strength and weaknesses, especially when considering use with
clinical data that may be serving multiple purposes.
--
Chime Ogbuji
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com)
>
>
> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this
Pat, see my responses inline below.
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2011, at 11:24 PM, Chime Ogbuji wrote:
> > The Relations Ontology is very central to many of the recently developed
> > biomedical ontologies and (speaking only for myself
e productive discussions, such as how to reconcile the
> Palestine/Israel conflict.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
--
Chime Ogbuji
Sent with Sparrow
ce between the SNOMED-CT
representational framework and RDF (to answer your question about what makes
them 'special').
--
Chime Ogbuji
Sent with Sparrow
On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Helena Deus wrote:
> Other standards (outside of semantic web) saw the need to rely on numer
t;
General observation: This seems like another neat v.s. scruffy thread and there
seem to be many of these playing out in the various semantic web communities at
this time. http-range-14 v.s. ontology-determined meaning of resources,
dereferencability of RDF URIs, etc.
--
Chime Ogbuji
Sent with Sparrow
On Monday, June 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Splendiani wrote:
Hi,
> sorry to jump on this thread like this...
>
> To be honest, I'm kind of concerned by the insistence on semantic-opaque
> identifiers.
I am as well and I have been for some time.
> I understand the reason for them,
>
Actually,
