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

Re: [BIONT-DSE] Inclusion versus exclusion criteria

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:21:32 -0400
To: wangxiao@musc.edu
cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Vipul Kashyap" <VKASHYAP1@partners.org>, "Andersson, Bo H" <Bo.H.Andersson@astrazeneca.com>, "Landen Bain" <lbain@topsailtech.com>, "Rachel Richesson" <Rachel.Richesson@epi.usf.edu>, public-hcls-dse@w3.org, "Stanley Huff" <Stan.Huff@intermountainmail.org>, "Yan Heras" <Yan.Heras@intermountainmail.org>, "Oniki, Tom (GE Healthcare, consultant)" <Tom.Oniki@ge.com>, "Joey Coyle" <joey@xcoyle.com>, "Bron W. Kisler" <bkisler@earthlink.net>, "Ida Sim" <sim@medicine.ucsf.edu>
Message-ID: <1189693293.12410.29.camel@otherland>

On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 14:42 +0100, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> >
> > In SPARQL, the combined use of FILTER/!/BOUND effectively gives you a
> > mechanism for matching records with non-monotonic mechanisms without an
> > entailment regime.  This is how we are able to *explicitly* ask for the
> > absence of an assertion based only on what the RDF dataset has in
> > persistence.
> >   
> A SPARQL endpoint is different from a simple RDF assertion because a 
> SPARQL endpoint answers within the scope of its knowledge base. The 
> context is closed by itself. 

Right, I was demonstrating how RDF assertions can be 'closed' to support
entailment-free query evaluation - as a starting point for certain
non-monotonic mechanisms: scoped negation as failure and scoped

> But the semantics of an RDF statement is 
> always global and open.  The issue at hand is not if a CWA can or cannot 
> be applied to a given set of RDF statements, it is about if two agents 
> will give consistent answer given the same set of assertions.

Right, but (as demonstrated in "A Realistic Architecture for the
Semantic Web") the inconsistency is not a problem as long as the agent
is aware of the entailment mechanism used.  I don't believe
(theoretically) inconsistent answers is a sufficient justification to
impose an open-world assumption on content that has native
inconsistencies in addition to a clearly-defined scope (this is
*especially* the case with medical records).

> Given a KB "_:someone pha:medicine _:aspirin", you agent can sure 
> interpret that it implies that "_:someone pha:medicin  _:viagra" is 
> false.  But you should not assume that other agent will have the same 
> interpretation. 

You can, if the entailment mechanisms used by the agents are known

> > [[
> > Related to the notion of scoped inference is an extension of the concept
> > of default negation, called scoped default negation.  The idea is that
> > the default negation inference rule must also be performed within the
> > scope of an explicitly specified knowledge base. That is, not q is said
> > to be true with respect to a knowledge base K if q is not derivable from
> > K.
> > ]] -- "A Realistic Architecture for the Semantic Web" [1]
> >   
> But please also see how dangerous such practice will be: "Ian Horrocks1, 
> Bijan Parsia, Peter Patel-Schneider, and James Hendler, Semantic Web 
> Architecture: Stack or Two Towers"
> at "http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2005/HPPH05.pdf"

Yes, I'm *very* aware of those two schools of thought :).  I think the
domain of discourse is an additional criteria that isn't often
considered, however.  My quote from [1] was only to ensure we have a
proper definition of "closed world assumptions" - I often find threads
on this topic begin with a poor definition and people end up talking
past each other.  Those two papers address a different (non-trivial)
question: whether the semantic web stack is best built on top of
Description Logic or Logic Programming (or at least on a framework which
includes a mapping between the two [1]).


Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593


Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S. News & World Report (2007).  
Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
a complete listing of our services, staff and

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 Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:22:29 UTC

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