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

Re: One ontology schema - heterogeneous instance bases

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:10:59 +0100
Message-ID: <46E54263.9040703@musc.edu>
To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

Eric Jain wrote:
> 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?
I think it is better solution that minting a new URI.  It is only one 
import statement.  Of course, if URI for the OWL version is under a 
seemingly application-specific namespace, such as under protege's URI, 
then just copy it to a namespace that you feel comfortable.  Eventually 
either DC is OWLed, or there is a namespace URI that most people will 
import to OWL DC.  For you, the only change is the import statement and 
nothing is affected.  I think it is a much much better solution than 
creating a bioPax:authors, chemPax:authors, mged:AuThors, etc...

Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 13:11:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:33 UTC