- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:48:11 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@partners.org>
- cc: Nigam Haresh Shah <nigam@stanford.edu>, Trish Whetzel <whetzel@pcbi.upenn.edu>, kc28 <kei.cheung@yale.edu>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Kashyap, Vipul wrote: > Nigam, > > This is an interesting example... > >> Have an example for this one: If the instance is of a the class "Tumor" >> then >> on giving treatment it changes in size, shape etc, and might ultimately >> disappear. On each visit we are observing a different version of the tumor >> instance [in Tom]. > > [VK] Clearly there is a longitudinal aspect to this as the state of the tumor > changes over time.... .. snip .. > IMHO, the former representation conveys more information and meaning... > So, it may make sense not to confound versioning with temporal progression... Spot on. I myself have had a hard time trying to grapple with the notion of allowing 'content' revision control to trickle into formal knoweldge representation and have yet to come across a scenario that demonstrates where this makes any sense. If a class has a particular 'definition' (i.e., the criteria for membership of its instances) at a particular time and that definition 'changes' then we are talking about a different class altogether not a 'version' of the same class - the extension of both classes are no longer the same. Unless the definition change is annotative only and doesn't really have any 'logical' consequences. In which case a SKOS, time-stamped annotation for a human reader is sufficient and what we really have in mind. Chimezie Ogbuji Lead Systems Analyst Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Cleveland Clinic Foundation 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26 Cleveland, Ohio 44195 Office: (216)444-8593 ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 21:48:22 UTC