W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Reviewing the Banff demo ontology infrastructure

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:40:53 -0400
To: samwald@gmx.at
cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Message-ID: <1181565653.6543.23.camel@otherland>

On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 22:20 +0200, samwald@gmx.at wrote:
> Reviewing the Banff demo ontology infrastructure
> 1) What relations do we use to connect a biological entity with artificial entities describing it, e.g. ‘protein records’, ‘sequence records’, ‘Pubmed records’?

I've been using the DOLCE relation edns:about for this purpose.
edns:about is:

[[
The relation between information objects and entities they are about.
The difference with 'expresses' is that the last requires a situation to
be about something. E.g. Dante's Comedy is about facts like Dante's
travel to the hereafter. The Comedy expresses a script as well as
various related meanings, while the facts talked about are not
'expressed'...
]]

The domain is inf:information-object and the range is dol:particular.
For example, a patient record is about a patient:

Class patient-record:
( ( edns:about only galen:Patient ) and ( obo:OBO_REL_has_proper_part
only cpr:clinical-description ) )

If we want to focus our attention to descriptions of biological reality,
then the range can be further constrained for this purpose
(dol:particular is really a catch-all, quite like owl:Thing)

> 3) How are information resources (e.g. the very abstract ‘database entry’, or the slightly less abstract ‘XML document associated with a database entry’) best represented in BFO-friendly ontologies?

In my most recent revision, I line [1] up clinical-description with
obi:OBI_342 (information_content_entity) - a subclass of obi:OBI_295
(non-realizable_information_entity).  

> These entities seem to be in conflict with the realism of BFO-friendly ontologies, yet we need to represent them somehow. This is probably a discussion for the BFO Google Group, but I could not get it started so far.
> Currently, we are classifying several such entities under bfo:Object, e.g. protein records, MeSH qualifiers, terms, notes and journal articles. I have the suspicion that this might be a problem.

Note, as a sibling to non-realizable_information_entity, we have the
notion of a "digital_entity".  These fall under the hierarchy of
"generically_dependent_continuants" instead of under
span:IndependentContinuant (where you'll find bfo:Object).  The
distinction is not completely clear to me.

clinical-description also lines up with the following terms from other
ontologies (which also have a notion of information resources - not
strictly in the TAG sense, however):

- cyc:InformationBearingObject (Cyc)
- inf:formal-expression (DOLCE)
- wn:synset-record-noun-1 (WordNet)

The DOLCE notion of a formal-expression is really meant for
information-objects 'ordered' with respect to a formal notation:

Class: inf:formal-expression
Necessary:
   edns:information-object 
   ( edns:ordered-by some inf:formal-system )


[1] http://purl.org/cpr/mapping#clinical-description

-- 
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


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




Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top 3 hospitals in
America by U.S.News & World Report. Visit us online at
http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of
our services, staff and locations.


Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 12:41:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:48 GMT