W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Re: exchanging OWL through RIF

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:12:22 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230900c032013c7f6b@[172.31.0.192]>
To: Ulrike Sattler <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

At 13:49 +0100 3/6/06, Ulrike Sattler wrote:
>On 3 Mar 2006, at 16:49, Jim Hendler wrote:
>
>>
>>  Paul - there's a lot more to this, and some of it is in the 
>>vocabulary -- let me start simple - in this case when I say "OWL" I 
>>don't mean the theoretical content of some ontology, I mean a 
>>document somewhere on the Web which contains RDF/OWL description - 
>>for example, if you point your browser at 
>>www.mindswap.org/2003/CancerOntology/nciOncology.owl (be careful, 
>>it is big) then you would see a particvular version of this 
>>ontology (the definitive version lives in NIH space and I don't 
>>have the link at the moment, it's considerably bigger than this 25M 
>>one).
>>
>>   Enter RIF (phase 2) - we want to take the stuff in that NCI 
>>ontology, take that document to our cancer research center, and 
>>check to see whether the data gathered in our datatbase corresponds 
>>to the expectations of the OWL model.  So, for example, if we see 
>>that an ONCOGENE is defined as any GENE which is ASSOCIATED with a 
>>DISEASE that is of type CANCER - we could go to the database and 
>>pull out all the things that are ONCOGENEs by this definition,
>>  This couldn't be done by OWL itself - it's a variant  of the 
>>famous "uncle" thing- essentially we need a chaining rule in here 
>>(from Gene to disease and disease to cancer)
>>
>
>I am sorry, but I have to disagree: this is easily possible in OWL 
>itself: simple retrieve all instances of ONCOGENEs: any DL reasoner 
>(eg Pellet) will retrieve exactly all instances of oncogene, whether 
>they have been declared as such or whether they are genes that are 
>associated with a disease of type cancer....
>
>Cheers, Uli

Uli - I'm talking a mix of A-box and T-box with chaining, exactly 
like the uncle case, I didn't specify details as I figured it wasn't 
needed - but even if I got this case wrong, the point is someone w/a 
DB may want to "ground" a set of assertions and then find all the 
values in the DB via chaining - so it requires multiple steps of 
non-functional predicates - which is what Ian keeps telling us all 
that OWL cannot do in its pure form.
  -JH

-- 
Professor James Hendler			  Director
Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery	  	  301-405-2696
UMIACS, Univ of Maryland			  301-314-9734 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20742	 		  http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
Web Log: http://www.mindswap.org/blog/author/hendler
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 15:21:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:27 GMT