> It would be immensely helpful, though, if these terms were to be used
> with their accepted meanings, as these are quite exact, relatively
> easy to define, widely understood, and have been standard in the
> relevant technical literature for about 50 years now.
[VK] It is quite likely that oth
s sense?
---Vipul
-Original Message-
From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:49 AM
To: Kashyap, Vipul
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls
Subject: Re: NeuronDB RDF and OWL
Soundness isn't the same, because we can lie (tell wrong facts) to
the
It is quite material. Probably more important scientifically then all the rest.
No one will care what we do if we give them nonsense answers, and worse tell
them they are "sound and complete" :)
[VK] From the point of view of completeness/soundness of the algorithm it
doesn't matter...
Of c
Well, we probably agree, but I don't want to let this one stand:
On Mar 15, 2007, at 10:23 PM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
Whether we "lied" to the KB is immaterial.
It is quite material. Probably more important scientifically then all
the rest. No one will care what we do if we give them nonsense
erg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:49 AM
> To: Kashyap, Vipul
> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls
> Subject: Re: NeuronDB RDF and OWL
>
> Soundness isn't the same, because we can lie (tell wrong facts) to
> the reasoner, which will (soundly) repeat back
This is very interesting!! Alan I totally agree with you that your goal is
definitely a good one to have.
[Alan] > Put another way, the goal might be stated as wanting to get both
*all* available answers to our questions, and *only* correct answers
to our questions, and both the above contri
Soundness isn't the same, because we can lie (tell wrong facts) to
the reasoner, which will (soundly) repeat back the lies.
That's the sort of thing that happens when we use is_a instead of
part_of in our ontologies.
-Alan
On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
Just to cla
> Just to clarify, because "sound and complete" is often used in a
> different sense: I don't mean sound and complete in the sense it is
> used in describing the properties of reasoning algorithms. I meant this
> statement with respect to the quality of answers to questions asked
> within our dom
Just to clarify, because "sound and complete" is often used in a
different sense: I don't mean sound and complete in the sense it is
used in describing the properties of reasoning algorithms. I meant this
statement with respect to the quality of answers to questions asked
within our domain of
Alsn,
Am in agreement with the general argument presented in this e-mail and would
like to propose a small experiment:
1. Let's do the data integration exercise with the current modeling approaches.
2. Repeat (1) with enriched modeling and descriptions.
3. For a set of queries, compare and cont
On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
Alan,
You have proposed some modeling suggestions and of course alignment
with the OBO
relations ontology.
Other than expressing the semantics of these classes precisely, it
will be great
if you and someone in this group could identify
thoughts?
---Vipul
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:38 AM
> To: public-semweb-lifesci hcls
> Subject: Re: NeuronDB RDF and OWL
>
>
>
[sent earlier directly to Kei, but we though it might be of general
interest]
Some comments on the NeuronDB modeling:
If there are textual definitions associated with the classes, it
would be helpful to include them as rdf:comments. If not, consider
going to
some reference and choosing
heung; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: NeuronDB RDF and OWL
We just finished exporting the NeuronDB of Senselab into RDF and OWL.
http://neuroweb.med.yale.edu/senselab/
Great!
Here are some thoughts I had while browsing through the OWL
version (I post them in public so others do not
Yale Center for Medical Informatics
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:48 AM
To: Kei Cheung; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: NeuronDB RDF and OWL
> We just finished expor
ci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: NeuronDB RDF and OWL
>
>
>
> > We just finished exporting the NeuronDB of Senselab into RDF and OWL.
> >
> > http://neuroweb.med.yale.edu/senselab/
>
>
> Great!
>
> Here are some thoughts I had while browsing throug
> We just finished exporting the NeuronDB of Senselab into RDF and OWL.
>
> http://neuroweb.med.yale.edu/senselab/
Great!
Here are some thoughts I had while browsing through the OWL version (I post
them in public so others do not give you redundant feedback):
According to the Pellet reasone
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the comments. I look forward to working with you and others
in the community to make NeuronDB (SenseLab in general) as broadly and
semantically usable as possible.
Cheers,
-Kei
William Bug wrote:
Hi Kei,
This is wonderful. It will really help others across the fiel
Hi Kei,
This is wonderful. It will really help others across the field to be
able to map to this representation so as to semantically integrate
with the NeuronDB content.
I'd like to discuss with you how this can be mapped into some of the
more complex semantic frameworks we are using in
19 matches
Mail list logo
