W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are

From: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:59:50 +0100
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20071001165833.03e842c0@manchester.ac.uk>
To: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

I think the simple case of reasoning that two objects with the same 
index are the same object will have the  single greatest effect in 
uptake of any potential change.

Robert.

At 14:37 01/10/2007, Matthew Pocock wrote:
>On Friday 28 September 2007, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > The OWLED task force on DatabasEsque features:
> >       http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/DatabasEsque
> >
> > Well, at least Uli and me, have been doing a bit of work on keys
> > (aka, inverseFunctional datatype properties) prompted by a visit to
> > Manchester by Matthew Pocock. Some sort of keys is a pretty high
> > value feature. However, if you check out this poster:
> >       http://webont.org/owled/taskforces/dbe/keys_poster.pdf
>
>Thanks for opening this up Bijan. Here in bioinformatics land, we 
>are drowning
>under entities that have been given IDs - bar codes, LSIDs, db/accession,
>database-table/primary-key and so on. I think what is being proposed would be
>sufficient to allow us to allow us to join stuff back up *where these keys
>have been asserted* which is our primary and most pressing use-case. In doing
>so, it would remove one of the major barriers to the wide adoption of OWL in
>bioinformatics.
>
>Matthew
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 16:00:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:55 GMT