illiam Bug; Mork, Peter D.S.Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.orgSubject: RE: [HCLS] Bridging Ontology...An Automated Approach? We are using mediation technology within the BIRN project as well. It has many ways in which it can solve some of the problems we're discussing. My fear is
From: Kashyap, Vipul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
8:57 AM
To: William Bug; Mork, Peter D.S.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: RE: [HCLS]
Bridging Ontology...An Automated Approach?
We are using mediation technology within the BIRN
Yes - but only for NeuronDB and CocoDat.
That is - unless the inherent lexicons used by these two resources
begin to evolve into something closer to a community-wide, shared ontology for
the domains they cover - which may very well be in the offing.
There is nothing ab
We are using mediation technology within the BIRN project as
well. It has many ways in which it can solve some of the problems we're
discussing.
My fear is every new repository requires an new mapping/registration to
the mediator and/or shared ontology. This can be a very frag
>> This is the approach adopted by caBIG. Individual data models (or
>> schemata) are related to a common ontology. By itself, this doesn't
>> allow one to rewrite queries (because of tacit assumptions present
in
>> the respective data models?), but the hope is that development of
>> query-media
> This is the approach adopted by caBIG. Individual data models (or
> schemata) are related to a common ontology. By itself, this doesn't
> allow one to rewrite queries (because of tacit assumptions present in
> the respective data models?), but the hope is that development of
> query-mediator
We are using mediation technology within the BIRN project as well. It has many ways in which it can solve some of the problems we're discussing.My fear is every new repository requires an new mapping/registration to the mediator and/or shared ontology. This can be a very fragile system over time,
Yes - but only for NeuronDB and CocoDat.That is - unless the inherent lexicons used by these two resources begin to evolve into something closer to a community-wide, shared ontology for the domains they cover - which may very well be in the offing.There is nothing about this particularly mapping th
>> Creating explicit connections between all similar and/or identical
>entries
>> in two schemas is an arduous task that is impractical to do
manually.
>
>[VK] Will mapping each of these schemas to an ontology and then using
the
>ontology to mediate further queries help alleviate the problem?
>
>-
> Creating explicit connections between all similar and/or identical entries
> in two schemas is an arduous task that is impractical to do manually.
[VK] Will mapping each of these schemas to an ontology and then using the
ontology to mediate further queries help alleviate the problem?
---Vipu
Don,
I like this formulation of the ontology mapping process.
It seems to have two aspects to it:
1. Specification of a mapping is like specifying a hypothesis.
As the data generated from these mappings is validated, this strengthens
these mappings. Otherwise, it weakens them.
2. Each map
11 matches
Mail list logo
