On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote: > Furthermore, the ontology allows for instances of involvements to be > expressed, without > specifying its subclass (Usage, Generation, etc). This is not aligned with > the data model. > This is a feature, not a bug. Even if Involvement were defined as equivalent to the union of subclasses, it would still be possible (and consistent) to assert that something is an Involvement without saying what the subclass is. We simply wouldn't know. Jim -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.eduReceived on Thursday, 23 February 2012 14:22:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT