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

Re: One ontology schema - heterogeneous instance bases

From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@unimib.it>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:29:03 +0200
Message-Id: <C1F5AF1B-B997-4019-873A-672602D33037@unimib.it>
Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:49 GMT