David, thanks. Like the examples. Only thing to make sure is that the
data/graph used to draw the conclusion is not altered with back-dated data
- think this aspect is already being discussed.
Cheers
Sivaram
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Siviram,
>
> On Wed, 2013-01-16
Hi Siviram,
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 14:51 -0600, Sivaram Arabandi, MD wrote:
> I am enjoying reading and catching up on this thread.
>
> David, you mentioned 'rdf model' below - are you referring to ontology
> models?
Yes, sort of. One can design an RDF model without formalizing it into a
writt
Because if it does, then they are effectively equivalent.
Jim
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 17 January 2013 08:27, Jim McCusker wrote:
>> http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-235R1.html
>
> That algorithm doesn't seem very clean, as it relies on all of the
On 17 January 2013 08:27, Jim McCusker wrote:
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-235R1.html
That algorithm doesn't seem very clean, as it relies on all of the
entities not changing the blank node identifiers for the simple
version. The complex version relies on all parties modifyin
On 17 January 2013 08:27, Jim McCusker wrote:
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-235R1.html
That algorithm doesn't seem very clean, as it relies on all of the
entities not changing the blank node identifiers for the simple
version. The complex version relies on all parties modifyin
This is a special use case. Although there is HL7, there are also other
standards like openEHR, CIMI, and there are proprietary models for
clinical information. We can be talking about a document, a message or a
"clinical statement" which is a fragment of one of the above.
Even within one stan
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-235R1.html
But there's a faster way to compute bnode identities that was presented at
ISWC this year, I still need to incorporate it:
http://iswc2012.semanticweb.org/sites/default/files/paper_16.pdf
Jim
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Peter Anse
On 17 January 2013 06:00, Jim McCusker wrote:
> If you would like to validate that an RDF graph hasn't changed, you can
> assert it's graph digest. Any new assertions would change the digest hash,
> invalidating the asserted graph. The digest can then be signed by the
> creator. That would close t
Monotonic reasoning is only the beginning here, not the end.
Jim
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Sivaram Arabandi, MD <
sivaram.araba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am enjoying reading and catching up on this thread.
>
> David, you mentioned 'rdf model' below - are you referring to ontology
> models
I am enjoying reading and catching up on this thread.
David, you mentioned 'rdf model' below - are you referring to ontology models?
And, you said "To my mind, monotonicity is the key." But in medicine most
reasoning is non-monotonic - default reasoning, (educated) guesses and
revision of d
If you would like to validate that an RDF graph hasn't changed, you can
assert it's graph digest. Any new assertions would change the digest hash,
invalidating the asserted graph. The digest can then be signed by the
creator. That would close the (explicit) graph in a very real, computable
way. Her
Hi Peter,
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 08:39 -0800, peter.hend...@kp.org wrote:
> Eric et al,
> Is there any material on the idea of "design time OWL runtime RDF"?
>
> Is it Kosher, once you are done with your reasoners, to convert to RDF
> and then treat it as if it were closed world like a databas
Eric et al,
Is there any material on the idea of "design time OWL runtime RDF"?
Is it Kosher, once you are done with your reasoners, to convert to RDF and
then treat it as if it were closed world like a database?
RIM which is OO, is of course closed world and can be represented in a
database.
13 matches
Mail list logo
