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

RE: HTML version of Ontology Working Group Proposal v2

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:16:09 -0500
Message-ID: <2BF18EC866AF0448816CDB62ADF65381033C28D1@PHSXMB11.partners.org>
To: "Alan Rector" <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-semweb-lifesci" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Alan,

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

As we were creating the ontology working group proposal,

it appeared to me that we need to coordinate with the Semantic 

Web Best Practices Group. Wanted feedback from you as to which of the tasks
proposed 

can be done jointly with the SWBPD group.

 

Regards,

 

---Vipul

 

=======================================

Vipul Kashyap, Ph.D.

Senior Medical Informatician

Clinical Informatics R&D, Partners HealthCare System

Phone: (781)416-9254

Cell: (617)943-7120

http://www.partners.org/cird/staff.asp?stAb=vik 

 

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

________________________________

From: Alan Rector [mailto:rector@cs.man.ac.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:39 PM
To: Kashyap, Vipul
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci
Subject: Re: HTML version of Ontology Working Group Proposal v2

 

Vipul

 

Many thanks for this. 

And apologies that I've been out of the loop for a long time.  Two things I
think are missing: 

 

 

i) 

"What's it for".  You touch on this in point 5)  "How should ontologies be
accesses and used?".  However, I think it should be much more prominent.  What
we will use 'ontologies' for and how they will improve things is more important
than saying what they are.  We can only determine if we are succeeding if we
first say what we are trying to accomplish.  

 

2) 

"Should" vs "Could" - the two alternate. I would suggest that a focus that links
alternatives to outcomes would be more effective.  For a given purposes in a
situations what are the consequences - advantageous and disadvantageous - of
using different technologies/ methodologies / approaches.

 

For illustration, I can think we can identify at least two large categories of
use:

 

a)       For what I shall call "Reference Information Resources" - which range
from things called "databases" - although not necessarily using "database
technology" - to things called ontologies such as the OBO family (whether they
use 'ontology technology' is not a debate I wish to enter into).  The question
of what role ontologies and the various technologies associated with ontologies
play in such resources is important.  How do the different technologies required
fit together to meet the different purposes?

 

b)       For communication and interworking - from message passing to workflows
to agent based software.

 

Others would undoubtedly add more or break them up differently.  That's not the
point for the Mission and Objectives.  That's for the work itself.  For now,
what is important is to identify that matching purpose and use to methodology
and technology are important parts of the group's remit. 

 

Regards

 

Alan

 

On 14 Feb 2006, at 17:06, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:





 

<Ontology Working Group Proposal v2.htm>

 

-----------------------

Alan Rector

Professor of Medical Informatics

Department of Computer Science

University of Manchester

Manchester M13 9PL, UK

TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149

FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204

www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig

www.clinical-esciences.org

www.co-ode.org

 
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2006 19:16:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:42 GMT