W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2006

RE: Ontology Working Group Proposal Draft

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:40:50 -0500
Message-ID: <2BF18EC866AF0448816CDB62ADF6538102BF57FB@PHSXMB11.partners.org>
To: <wangxiao@musc.edu>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>


Thanks for your feedback and suggestions.
Will incorporate them in the draft.



Vipul Kashyap, Ph.D.
Senior Medical Informatician
Clinical Informatics R&D, Partners HealthCare System
Phone: (781)416-9254
Cell: (617)943-7120
To keep up you need the right answers; to get ahead you need the right questions
---John Browning and Spencer Reiss, Wired 6.04.95

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of wangxiao@musc.edu
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 7:40 PM
> To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ontology Working Group Proposal Draft
> Nice job, Vipul:
> Here are my two cents:
> For item 2:
> I think we should explicitly specify the context when attempting to define
> the
> word "ontology". I don't want to get into the argument with
> philosophers. It is
> a debate that hasn't be settled for thousands of years and I don't
> think we can
> settle it too.
> An "ontology" has two facets - one is an engineer artifacts and the
> other social
> agreement (Both of Gruber). The first facet can, and should be, defined in
> the
> context of semantic web.  I don't think in SW you can distinguish a
> "controlled
> vocabulary" from an "ontology". If you use URI and use RDF/OWL, it becomes
> an
> ontology in SW.  This is my intention when I brought this up at the
> meeting.
> To clarify the meaning of the word "ontology" not the meaning of
> "ontology".
> About item 3:
> You said: "A set of current ontology fragments such as Snomed, MedRA
> and GO will
> be represented using these standards ..."
> The "standards" you mean is the best practice guidelne? If it is so,
> how can we
> represent these ontologies without their involvement?  I am a bit
> confused what
> you mean by that?
> Also, I though there is an issue which we (or I) mistakenly named as
> "ID mapping
> algorithm". The use of word "algorithm" is wrong, what I meant is a
> strategy to
> map a lot of existing IDs, such as DOI etc. I think this is an
> important issue,
> the BioPax people knows this very well.  It should be the
> responsibility of this
> group to provide a recommendation how to provide a context to these IDs.
> This
> seems missing from the document.
> Xiaoshu
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2006 16:40:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:24 UTC