--Michael,
> > Well, how can a computer knows my intension about the parts that I
> > don't "use/disagree"? But, I think, if I disagree one
> portion of the
> > ontology, I certainly would not use the other part of the
> ontology at
> > all since if I make one contradicting statement, it wi
I think one thing to consider is that a person in the biomedical
domain can be two quite distinct things:
a person with a role in some investigation and so on... (there was
some previous thread about things like this) and a "biological
material"... the fact that we are the ones studying our
-- Matthias,
> > I actually think that each ontology designer should think
> beyond its
> > own community because in the long run, we don't know how
> things will
> > be interact with each other.
>
> But thats the problem. It would be quite hard for ontology
> developers to anticipate all
ichael
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Xiaoshu Wang
> Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 8:24 PM
> To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: RE: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons' - ACL
&g
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:24:30 -0400, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> I actually think that each ontology designer should think beyond
> its own community because in the long run, we don't know how
> things will be interact with each other.
But thats the problem. It would be quite hard for ontology devel
--Drew,
> > If so, I am not sure how
> > it will work? One of the neat features of the web is its loosely
> > coupled nature. But you need to follow your nose to know
> more about the resource.
> > Without "importing", i.e., to fetch the resource
> description from the
> > namespace, what i
--Dan,
> Yup. It's one thing to define a fresh new vocabulary
> uncluttered with tributes to our Internet forefathers. It's
> quite another to populate it with machine readable critiques
> of sibling ontologies that hinder simultaneous usage. I
> guess you *could* write OWL that says somethi
--Dan,
> Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> >>> IMHO, inadequate separation of ontology's domain will have some
> >>> serious side effects in the long run. Aside from wasted
> >> bandwidth and
> >>> computation to handle the unnecessary statement, but when more
> >>> ontologies are shared, the chance for
> [Xiaoshu Wang]
>
> Well, how can a computer knows my intension about the parts that I don't
> "use/disagree"? But, I think, if I disagree one portion of the ontology, I
> certainly would not use the other part of the ontology at all since if I
> make one contradicting statement, it will inval
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> Hence, even if I don't disagree but just no use certain part of an ontology.
> How do I know if those who want to use my ontology but disagree the imported
> other part. For example, if I develop a ex:Patient and make it a
> rdfs:subClassOf the foaf:Person. Personally, I d
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>>> IMHO, inadequate separation of ontology's domain will have some
>>> serious side effects in the long run. Aside from wasted
>> bandwidth and
>>> computation to handle the unnecessary statement, but when more
>>> ontologies are shared, the chance for incur conflict will
> > I wish it could be that simple when you handle the task to
> machine.
> > Show me how you can only import the foaf:Person without
> fetching the
> > foaf:geekcodes as well? From other perspective, can you do
> something
> > like, I only use this part of GO but not the other part?
> Eve
> [Xiaoshu Wang]
>
> I wish it could be that simple when you handle the task to machine. Show me
> how you can only import the foaf:Person without fetching the foaf:geekcodes
> as well? From other perspective, can you do something like, I only use this
> part of GO but not the other part? Even
> > IMHO, inadequate separation of ontology's domain will have some
> > serious side effects in the long run. Aside from wasted
> bandwidth and
> > computation to handle the unnecessary statement, but when more
> > ontologies are shared, the chance for incur conflict will
> increase and
> >
> IMHO, inadequate separation of ontology's domain will have some
> serious side effects in the long run. Aside from wasted bandwidth
> and computation to handle the unnecessary statement, but when more
> ontologies are shared, the chance for incur conflict will increase
> and makes the sharing
> If there are aspects of FOAF that are of use to biomedical
> science (I'm not sure what these are), then these should be
> separated out into a minimal ontology. If people want to
> reason over databases to determine if genotypes correlate
> with foaf:OnlineGamingAccount then they can do so
> On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Drew McDermott wrote:
> > I'm not sure I'm agreeing or disagreeing with Chimezie (it depends on
> > what's meant by "consensus" here), but I'd like to emphasize a point
> > others have made in this discussion: Deciding to use a particular
> > ontology is not like
Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, William Bug wrote:
>
>> Ditto, Kei!!!
>>
>> Of course, at the heart of this - in addition to the very important
>> issue Chemezie introduced re: ACL at the graph node level, if that is
>> practical - is the discussion we've been having reg
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Drew McDermott wrote:
[Chimezie Ogbuji]
Seems to me the biggest barrier is in coming to a consensus on
an appropriate placeholder vocabulary and not neccessarily on
determining
all the various ways in which a person (and their related data)
could be
expre
> [Chimezie Ogbuji]
>
> Seems to me the biggest barrier is in coming to a consensus on
> an appropriate placeholder vocabulary and not neccessarily on determining
> all the various ways in which a person (and their related data) could be
> expressed in a patient record.
I'm not sure I'm agre
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the specific needs here, but I wonder
if
> authoritative identification of individuals is really an argument
for a
> ID-oriented naming convention - such as LSID.
>
With regard to identity, has anyone here had experiece
with I-names [1]. These are OASIS "human-
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>> Absolutely. However, concensus on a placeholder class for a
>> person doesn't prevent you from extending it with other
>> attributes (or relationships with other classes) at a latter
>> point - that's one of the advantages of the expressiveness of
>> Description Logics.
> Absolutely. However, concensus on a placeholder class for a
> person doesn't prevent you from extending it with other
> attributes (or relationships with other classes) at a latter
> point - that's one of the advantages of the expressiveness of
> Description Logics.
>
> Seems to me the big
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, William Bug wrote:
Ditto, Kei!!!
Of course, at the heart of this - in addition to the very important issue
Chemezie introduced re: ACL at the graph node level, if that is practical -
is the discussion we've been having regarding URIs - how to create them,
broadcast/d
such "patient-encounter" episode, he is a patient (Participation).I am not sure if the person ontology should concern such transitional concepts.Helen*kc28 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]09/13/2006 09:45 PM To Marco Brandizi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>cc public-semweb-lifesc
* Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:08 AM
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Cc:* Marco Brandizi; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Subject:* Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons'
Kei
You raised a good point here.
Indeed, person can have multiple roles in a given organ
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
An important issue that is likely to come up soon in healthcare is the
integration of a person's genetic information in the electronic medical record.
So, would it make sense to extend the person class to hold a person's genomic
information?
Absol
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Marco Brandizi; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A question on the
vocabulary for 'persons'
Kei
You
raised a good point here.
Indeed,
person can have multiple roles in a given organization or scenario. Capturing
this multiplic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
09/13/2006 09:45 PM
To
Marco Brandizi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject
Re: A question on the vocabulary for
'persons'
Hi Marco et al.,
It is also possible that a person can have multip
ampus.org/ns/sc#"; --
Pierre Lindenbaum PhD
http://plindenbaum.blogspot.com
- Message d'origine
De : AJ Chen
À : Ivan Herman
Cc : public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Envoyé le : Jeudi, 14 Septembre 2006, 9h44mn 46s
Objet : Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons'
For experiment publishing ontology, I need a Person class to represent
anybody involved in the research community. Here are the list of
required properties in the current SPE specs. I specifically
point out the closest FOAF terms if available and their mismatched
datat ypes.
foaf:name
foaf:titl
Hi Marco et al.,
It is also possible that a person can have multiple roles (e.g.,
researcher and teacher). Are there standard vocabularies that we can use
to describe roles, for example? There might be a temporal aspect as
well. For example, a person at one point was a postdoc but later becam
3c/hchen Chimezie Ogbuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]09/13/2006 10:03 AMTo Dirk Colaert/AMIPU/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc systemsbiology <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org> Subject Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons' There ar
ED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
09/13/2006 10:03 AM
To
Dirk Colaert/AMIPU/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
systemsbiology
Subject
Re: A question on the vocabulary for
'persons'
There are ontological inconsistencies [1] with HL7 RIM that warrant a
closer look. Though, admittedly,
Ivan,
> There were some brainstorming on what vocabularies to use for
> the simple notion of 'Person' in various settings. There is
> old W3C note for an RDF version of vCard[1], but another
> version was created by Norm Walsh a while ago[2]. And, of
> course, there is FOAF.
>
> The issue ca
mobile: +32 497 470 871
Alan Ruttenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13/09/2006 06:47
To
Ivan Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
systemsbiology
Subject
Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons'
I had been using FOAF as a basis and then adding rel
Dr. Dirk Colaert MD
Advanced Clinical Application Research Manager
Agfa Healthcare mobile:
+32 497 470 871
Alan Ruttenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13/09/2006 06:47
To
Ivan Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
kei cheung wrote:
Based on my limited experience, a person in the life science and
healthcare context can be considered as a subject or patient (which
can be a subclass of person). Of course, there are other roles a
person can play (e.g., doctors, researchers, and authors). For
genetic studies
AJ,
thanks for this answer. Would it be possible to elaborate a little bit
on what problems you have hit wen trying to use vCard (or FOAF)? It
would certainly help us in understanding the issues...
Thanks
Ivan
AJ Chen wrote:
> In developing SPE ontology, I have tried to re-use FOAF and vCard, b
I had been using FOAF as a basis and then adding relations as needed.
-Alan
On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
Dear all,
we would need some feedback...
There were some brainstorming on what vocabularies to use for the
simple
notion of 'Person' in various settings. There is ol
It's probably quite important to define various relation classes for the aggregated properties we tend to relate to a person. I would imagine this comes under standard upper ontologies. It would necessarily need to include definitions of FOAF and vCard so that we could classify across current data
In developing SPE ontology, I have tried to re-use FOAF and vCard, but
unfortunately found little can can be re-used. One main reason is that,
although they may have the terms, the definitions of these terms
usually don't match what's required by the Person class in SPE
ontology. The problem mostly
Hi Ivan et al.,
Based on my limited experience, a person in the life science and
healthcare context can be considered as a subject or patient (which can
be a subclass of person). Of course, there are other roles a person can
play (e.g., doctors, researchers, and authors). For genetic studies,
We use (or at least plan to map our ontology to) FOAF, primarily
because of its linkage to Wordnet, support for identity reasoning (via
Inverse Function Properties), significant adoption, and coverage of a good
chunk of vocabulary terms that can be used for patient demographic data.
We do al
44 matches
Mail list logo
