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 13:25:53 -0400
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1189704353.12410.57.camel@otherland>

On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 16:44 +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> I trimmed the ccs since I get scared if I have to scroll a cc list.

Thanks, I have a bad habit of not doing that :)

> Eh. Not really. First of all, "domain of discourse" has a couple of  
> specific technical meanings so we should be a bit wary about it.

What I meant by "domain of discourse" was essentially the subject domain
of the assertions (in this case: assertions made as a result of the
patient care process)

> >   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

> DLP isn't a mapping. For mapping from, e.g., 

I don't follow how DLP is not a mapping (unless you are specifically
referring to the 'concerns' mentioned above about if it is indeed lossy
i.e., 1-1).  It is defined as a function whose input are DL expressions
(an expressive subset: DHL) and the output is "equivalent" Horn Logic.

> LP to FOL, look at  
> things like clark's completion. 

DHL is in the other direction, no?

> This cannot be done in the most  
> general settings since it would require second order features. But,  
> e.g., with nominals, you can restrict the models of an OWL KB in a  
> number of ways. One obvious thing you can do is domain closure, i.e.,:
> 
> 	owl:Thing subClassOf {A, B, C}
> 
> where A B and C are individuals and {} is the "oneOf" operator.
> 
> Note that DLP-LP and DLP-FOL do coincide for certain classes of  
> answer for certain classes of query (since their ground entailments  
> coincide).

Yes, this is clearly stated in the DLP paper and it is *this*
intersection that is of primary interest because the LP evaluation
complexity is significantly less (at least that is my understanding).

> This has gotten a bit too deeply technical perhaps. 

Yes, I would agree.  However, I think further research into this
intersection is a very important contribution towards reducing the
(currently) intractable nature of inference over large ontologies
(especially EL++ ontologies which are very common in this domain:
SNOMED-CT, GALEN, FMA, etc..) 

> From a language/ 
> infrastructure design perspective, it seems clear that having some  
> sorts of non-monotonic features are quite useful in a number of  
> circumstances. 

Absolutely, this was really the main point I was trying to make.  It
just didn't seem right to suggest a framework that excludes certain
non-monotonic features that make perfect sense for the very controlled /
focused nature of clinical & biomedical research.

-- 
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 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
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 Thursday, 13 September 2007 18:51:32 GMT

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