ference arises that the current ontology doesn't license, we add
axioms and constrain the meaning further.
So, if you want to use an ontology's namespace, and maybe copy a few
axioms from it, without importing it, I think you should just go
ahead.
--
Drew McDermott
Yale Computer Science Department
ing into a whole mess of hard questions about version control,
partial importing of ontologies, etc. etc. that I wish I had answers
to.
--
Drew McDermott
Yale Computer Science Department
> On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Drew McDermott wrote:
> > I'm not sure I'm agreeing or disagreeing with Chimezie (it depends on
> > what's meant by "consensus" here), but I'd like to emphasize a point
> > others have made in this discussion: De
will converge on the same term, but that's an orthogonal
issue.]
--
-- Drew McDermott
Yale Computer Science
Department
of alternatives.
-- Drew McDermott
ntrast, OWL is
100% logically pure, so that no exceptions to the inheritance rule are
allowed.
-- Drew McDermott
ology is to use URIs as names
--- period. So long as a URI means only one gene, and everyone agrees
what gene it means, there is no ambiguity problem. It's also a good
idea to avoid having more than one name for a gene, but multiple names
do not constitute ambiguity, merely inefficiency.
--
Drew McDermott
Yale Computer Science Department
