- From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@unimib.it>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:29:03 +0200
- To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
This is not the point. The idea is that a user of a URIs should accept a commitment to a shared conceptualizazion. And strictly speaking... information such as authors don't need to be "in the ontology"... meaning... are we going to define classes in the real world depending on authors ? (hope this doesn't open a huge thread). ciao, A. Il giorno 10/set/07, alle ore 13:59, Eric Jain ha scritto: > > Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >> [...] Is its semantics any different from the "creator" defined by >> the dublin core? If there isn't any, (at least from what I can >> tell), then bioPAX SHOULD NOT reinvent the wheel to mint this term >> because, if every "ontology" developed its own author term, then, >> there will be hundreds of "authors/creators" etc., that we have to >> align when the so-called BioPAX data is mixed with other kind of >> data. [...] > > Can't speak for BioPAX, but I can say that for me one problem with > DC is that it's RDF(S), so I can't use the properties in my OWL > restrictions etc! > > There are some OWL versions (Protege even allows you to import > one), but I don't know if that is a good idea, as far as I can see > this isn't official? >
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 12:29:13 UTC