W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hcls-coi@w3.org > January to March 2008

RE: An argument for bridging information models and ontologies at the syntactic level

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:35:34 -0400
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D1240236D16B@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Ogbuji, Chimezie" <OGBUJIC@ccf.org>, <public-hcls-coi@w3.org>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

 

> Okay, for me, the difference is whether or not the underlying language
> is backed by a some knowledge reprsentation with a formal 
> semantics.  By
> knowledge representation I primarily mean a language that can 
> facilitate
> inference [1]. 

I agree with the above, though I would probably draw a distinction between:
(A) A language with a formal semantics
(B) A language that can facilitate inference.

(A) is the crucial issue. (B) is an added bonus. The reason for this is that
(A) helps even when you don't want to draw inferences, e.g., establishing a
knowledge
standard and consistent definitions across the enterprise.

Note in that reference (which serves as my preferred
> definition of what a KR is) it states: "A KR is not a data structure."

I agree.

> So, although data modeling systems such as RELAX NG and HL7 
> RIM might be
> used to refer to real entities, they do not facilitate any level of
> inference.

Yes. and they also model the data structure type of things. Further more
the semantics of various RIM constructs are not clear and are not well
specified.

> So, I think of what you call 'implementations or data models' as being
> synonymous with a concrete syntax.  

I would agree with the above as the syntax seeks to describe the structure and
organization
of the data as opposed to information.

> [[
> 	[VK] The definition of knowledge representation above is closer
> in my mind to the notion of an information model, where the 
> focus should
> be on describing information as opposed to describing structures
> 	for messaging, data manipulation, etc. 
> ]]
> 
> Does the distinction of inference change this for you?

No. In fact, inference is one of the "side-effects" of semantics, which is why I
accord
a higher level of priority to the specification of well defined semantics of a
language.

Cheers,

---Vipul

The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only
for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this
information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and
properly dispose of this information.
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2008 10:36:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 March 2008 10:36:26 GMT