deWaard, Anita (ELS) wrote:
A quick question that I was hoping this forum might have some thoughts
on: we are looking for a new editing tool for our life science thesaurus
EMTREE (proprietary, multi-facted polyhierarchical, 260 k terms (50 k
preferred, 210 k+ synonyms), > 10,000 nodes) and I a
Title: Re: Ontology editor + why RDF?
> So my question is: if (content and indexing) offerings are commercial and
> proprietary, does it make them less "semantic"? Does interoperability
> require openness?
Interesting question from Anita. Surely this is directly
Roger wrote:
> Well, I myself am particularly interested in commercially available
> products built on Semantic Web technology, but of course I'm not in the
> life sciences so maybe that's not an interesting data point. As for
> interoperable formats -- that sounds like a good thing, but you can
Behalf Of Waard, Anita
de A (ELS-AMS)
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 4:47 AM
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
In this discussion, I would be intersted in separating:
A. WHO does what (and do they charge for it):
- Who owns and distributes content (free for all
In this discussion, I would be intersted in separating:
A. WHO does what (and do they charge for it):
- Who owns and distributes content (free for all vs. sold for a fee)
- Who owns and distributes thesauri/ontologies (,,)
- Who connects thesauri/ontologies to a) text (indexing) and b) other
the
My two cents:
I don't know how you answer 'how much easier' at this point, but I
think one can make a pretty good case for 'why' -
Mosaic and the Web didn't allow you to do new things as much as it
suggested a way to look at content creation and browsing - the
general public should be able
> hmm, interesting questions - tell you what - if someone will tell me
> what the answers are for the Web, then I can think about how we might
> make similar answers for the Semantic Web
[VK] The only catch in the above argument is that the market has completely
adopted and extended the Web! So
hmm, interesting questions - tell you what - if someone will tell me
what the answers are for the Web, then I can think about how we might
make similar answers for the Semantic Web -- seriously, the goal is a
cross-cutting technology, not a single solution engine. That said, I
do agree that
> I
> don't see what this toy does for us." If we sincerely believe we have a
> better mousetrap, then shouldn't we be catching mice instead of worrying
> about skeptics?
[VK] But wouldn't it be a nice idea to show that the better mousetrap catches
more mice, or catches them more conveniently at
> To be honest, I think that this is a recipe of despair; I don't think
> that there is any one thing that SW enables you do to that could not
> do in another way. It's a question of whether you can do things more
> conveniently, or with more commonality than other wise; after all, XML
> is just
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Apply Ontology Automatically (was: Ontology
> editor + why RDF?)
>
>
>
> Here&#
net
> Business Logic
> Sent: 03 April 2006 16:44
> To: Phillip Lord
> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Apply Ontology Automatically (was: Ontology editor + why
> RDF?)
>
>
>
> Phillip --
>
> You wrote (below) "ability ... to be able to ap
Phillip --
You wrote (below) "ability ... to be able to apply the ontology automatically in
some circumstances"
This could be the major selling point. Otherwise, the value of the ontology
depends on how well programmers read, understand, and use it. And, if they did
that well, was it their
Quoting "Kashyap, Vipul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
A straight-foward "porting" is always wrong, or lack of the comprehension of
difference between RDF and other exiting technologies. RDB and XML schema
contains implicit semantics that should be explicitly expressed in RDF.
[VK] Making the unde
Anita, quoting VK, wrote:
> However, practically, I recognise internal discussions along the lines
> that
> Vipul Kashyap has mentioned, such as:
> [VK] "When you try to sell the concept of RDF, etc. to an IT shop, they
> will
> ask: what do we gain by moving to RDF, when what you are representi
> "Anita" == deWaard, Anita (ELS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anita> I am reminded of a saying on a Dutch proverb calendar: "If
Anita> love is the answer, could you please repeat the question?" If
Anita> semantics are the answer - what is the problem that is being
Anita> solved, in a
I have been thrilled to read the responses which followed my (simple and
practical) question. Thank you all for your thoughts - I am fascinated to
see how this discussion will continue, particularly the "web" vs."semantics"
debate.
This debate precisely summarises the battle I am trying to figh
Title: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
A straight-foward "porting" is always wrong,
or lack of the comprehension of difference between RDF and other exiting
technologies. RDB and XML schema contains implicit semantics that
should be explicitly expressed in RDF.
[VK]
g.
Specification of an information model in a formal language with the
certainty that the validity of such a specification can be tested
automatically can go a long way in improving the quality of the model.
jb
- Original Message -
From: "Kashyap, Vipul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
way in improving the quality of the model.
jb
- Original Message -
From: "Kashyap, Vipul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Danny Ayers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jim Hendler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "deWaard, Anita (ELS)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTE
Title: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
[Vipul] If
we take a relational table, an XML schema or a thesaurus and just move it over
to RDF as-it-is, then we
haven’t added “new” semantics to the information… all we have is the original
information in the relational table/XML/thesaurus now
Title: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
Jim,
Contrary to the impression you may have
got based on our current exchange,
we are actually in “violent
agreement”. I am in complete concurrence to the idea
of “little semantics” and
incremental ramping up of semantic sophistication.
My
I find this discussion very
interesting.
[VK] Agreed, one of the clearer
value propositions is data integration.> Being able to use ontologies
to infer new information is a massive> plus (I imagine especially in the
lifesciences). Bigger still are the> (anticipated) benefits of the
Semantic
lifesci@w3.orgSubject: RE: Ontology editor + why
RDF?
Vipul - not sure this is best thread for this whole discussion, but
here's a quick answer and if you want longer, I can point you to various
things starting from the Scientific American article [1] and also an article
on integrating
Title: Re: Ontology editor + why RDF?
At 10:15 -0500 3/31/06, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>On Mar 31, 2006, at 3:26 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>
>> The work done around SKOS (and specific tasks like expressing
WordNet
>> in RDF) does suggest RDF/OWL is a particularly good
techno
On 3/31/06, Alan Ruttenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2006, at 3:26 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>
> > The work done around SKOS (and specific tasks like expressing WordNet
> > in RDF) does suggest RDF/OWL is a particularly good technology choice
> > for thesauri.
> Could you either sum
Title: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
Vipul - not sure this is best thread for this whole discussion,
but here's a quick answer and if you want longer, I can point you to
various things starting from the Scientific American article [1] and
also an article on integrating applications on th
> I saw a quote not long ago, not sure of the source (recognise this
> Jim?), approximately: "what's new about the Semantic Web isn't the
> semantics but the web".
[VK] This is a great quote and expresses clearly that the value proposition
in representing and linking vocabularies using URIs
[JH]
> I think RDFS and RDFS+a few OWL constructs are as much (if not more)
> Semantic Web than a standalone ontology even if it is in OWL...
> [VK] This is an interesting discussion which we have been having in the
> BIORDF group and I approach this issue from the perspective
>
> of what is the
Title: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
I think RDFS and RDFS+a few OWL constructs are as much (if not more)
Semantic Web than a standalone ontology even if it is in OWL...
[VK] This is an interesting discussion which we have been
having in the BIORDF group and I approach this
Title: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
At 22:12 -0500 3/30/06, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
I also think the use case for bringing the thesaurus to the Web
goes beyond the OWL stuff Vipal describes. Essentially, by
moving to RDFS (SKOS) you get an advantage different than reasoning -
the terms in
Title: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
I also think the use case for bringing the thesaurus to the Web goes
beyond the OWL stuff Vipal describes. Essentially, by moving to RDFS
(SKOS) you get an advantage different than reasoning - the terms in your
thesaurus become URIs that other
Title: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
Vipul wrote:
Anita,
There are two alternatives for representing ontologies RDF Schema
and OWL.
If you plan to use an OWL reasoner then, an OWL based ontology
editor should be the right choice.
This can help you:
- track
inconsistencies such as
ROTECTED] On
Behalf Of deWaard, Anita (ELS)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006
6:37 AM
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Ontology editor + why
RDF?
Dear all,
A quick question that I was
hoping this forum might have some thoughts on: we are looking for a new
editing tool for our life
On Mar 30, 2006, at 6:36 AM, deWaard, Anita (ELS) wrote:
Dear all,
A quick question that I was hoping this forum might have some
thoughts on: we are looking for a new editing tool for our life
science thesaurus EMTREE (proprietary, multi-facted
polyhierarchical, 260 k terms (50 k prefer
Dear all,
A quick question that I was
hoping this forum might have some thoughts on: we are looking for a new editing tool for our life science
thesaurus EMTREE (proprietary, multi-facted polyhierarchical, 260 k terms (50 k
preferred, 210 k+ synonyms), > 10,000 nodes) and I am trying
to
36 matches
Mail list logo
