W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Implementations of LCS for OWL

From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:31:58 +0100
To: Chris Mungall <cjm@berkeleybop.org>
Cc: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, sonic@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de
Message-ID: <87och18hoh.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk>
Chris Mungall <cjm@berkeleybop.org> writes:
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Alan Rector wrote:
>> Or there's the least common named subsumer in the inferred
>> classification lattice using lattice theoretical tools, but I presume
>> that is not what you are asking or you wouldn't be asking it.
> Correct, it would be a solved problem if the result was drawn only
> from the set of named classes.

Okay, so email overlap. 

It seems reasonable to me to assume that at the time you want to
calculate a semantic similarity, then you have all the three terms that
you want -- the two that you wish to compare, and the (unknown,
explicitly expressed in the ontology) term that is the LCS. 

I can see a very strong use case why you might want to allow the query
terms to not pre-exist, but why the LCS? What semantic similarity
measures were you thinking of anyway? The information content based
ones will, I think, require that the LCS pre-exist anyway. Otherwise,
you will have to test each LCS against the entire corpus for each query. 

Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 08:32:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:19 UTC