thinking in terms of use
cases.
JJ Michon, MD, MS
Duke University
John Madden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
02/10/2006 07:58 AM
To
public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
cc
Subject
Re: Ontology Working Group
Proposal Draft
Hey Vipul,
There's a topic I&#
Hey Vipul,
There's a topic I'm not sure whether it is reflected in the draft
(I'm away from my desktop).
That's the issue of helping to collect/develop some standard web
service definitions for "ontology services".
Of course there are lots of wonderful "terminology server" API's out
th
Title: Re: Ontology Working Group Proposal Draft
Jim.
Thanks for your comments.
Given that SWRL is not a W3C
Recommendation, it may be a better idea
to use “Rules” in general
without reference to any standard, etc.
There was also a discussion on someone
liasing with the RIF Group
Title: Re: Ontology Working Group Proposal
Draft
Vipul, I've been looking this over, there's parts I agree with
completely, and parts I agree in spirit, although I would quibble with
words if the specific wording becomes really important. There is
one thing, though, which I think i
9:59 AM
> To: Adrian Walker
> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci; John Madden; Vinay K. Chaudhri;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Stevens;
> Amit Sheth @ LSDIS; Alfredo Morales; Ullman-Cullere, Mollie;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Musen
> Subject: RE: Ontology Working Group Pr
ht answers; to get ahead you need the
> >> right questions
> >> ---John Browning and Spencer Reiss, Wired 6.04.95
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Vinay K. Chaudhri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> Sent: S
> "The current definition of an ontology as enunciated by the W3C needs to
> be
> examined and extended if required. Ontology as a model of use needs to be
> emphasized in contrast to ontology as a model of meaning."
>
> In admittedly limited reading of the ontology literature, I have formed
> t
, Vipul
> Cc: Vinay K. Chaudhri; public-semweb-lifesci; John Madden;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Stevens; Alfredo
> Morales; Ullman-Cullere, Mollie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Musen
> Subject: Re: Ontology Working Group Proposal Draft
>
> Vipul and all:
> This
Vipul,
Thanks for sending out the draft...It is a good start.
My main worry is whether the link to the scenarios is too tenuous in the
way things
are proposed. It is easy to sink in lot of time in academic discussions
about ontology,
but we really want to be solving a concrete and specific p
Hi Vipul and All --
This looks like a nice draft.
I do have a question please. It's about:
"The current definition of an ontology as enunciated by the W3C needs to be
examined and extended if required. Ontology as a model of use needs to be
emphasized in contrast to ontology as a model of m
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 7:40 PM
> To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ontology Working Group Proposal Draft
>
>
> Nice job, Vipul:
>
> Here are my two cents:
>
> For item 2:
>
> I think we should explici
ECTED]; Robert Stevens; Amit Sheth @ LSDIS; Alfredo
> Morales; Ullman-Cullere, Mollie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Musen
> Subject: Re: Ontology Working Group Proposal Draft
>
> Vipul,
>
> Thanks for sending out the draft...It is a good start.
>
> My main worry is whether t
; Morales; Ullman-Cullere, Mollie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Musen
> Subject: RE: Ontology Working Group Proposal Draft
>
> Hi All,
>
> Overall, it looks like a nice formulation. I especially like the
> emphasis in practical usage.
>
> For point 2, there is an additional
nay K. Chaudhri; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Stevens; Amit Sheth @ LSDIS; Alfredo Morales;
Ullman-Cullere, Mollie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Musen
Subject: Re: Ontology Working Group Proposal Draft
Vipul,
Very nice. I added a paragraph expressly highlighting ontology
interoperab
14 matches
Mail list logo
