W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Multi-layered Knowledge Representations for Healthcare

From: Dan Russler <dan.russler@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:43:34 -0400
Message-ID: <484582C6.1040809@oracle.com>
To: Dan Corwin <dan@lexikos.com>
CC: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>, Samson Tu <swt@stanford.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, public-hcls-coi@w3.org, Elkin.Peter@MAYO.EDU

Hi Dan,

Love Sowa's book on Knowledge Representation. However, in his 
discussion, he put up the top level ontology as an example for teaching 
purposes. It is not fully developed in terms of coherence and 
discrimination. He even discusses some of the issues with the model, 
e.g. occurent and continant.

DanR

Dan Corwin wrote:

> Dan Russler wrote:
>
>> Actually, this list might be too long!
>>
>> Many of these break down on utility, at least on "easy to define and 
>> decide."
>
>
> Definitions for these discriminants are easy to find,
> in the same way one finds ontologies at levels 1, 2...
> I have adapted (and I recommend) those of John Sowa.
> http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm
>
> Deciding is something that needs to be done for each
> term in each ontology, by its publisher.  If it does
> not happen explicitly, concepts get conflated, which
> becomes a huge source of confusion later for others.
>
> Declaring which discriminants apply to each term must
> become part of the minimum level of documentation that
> SW deems acceptable for published ontologies.
>
> Without it, ontology concepts will stay undefined along
> at least one fundamental semantic dimension.  That lets
> people (mis)use them, so they inevitably will, which is
> exactly counter to *the* core goal for any ontology.
>
> Hard or easy, the utility gained fully merits its costs.
>
> best regards,
> Dan Corwin
>
>> Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
>
>
>>>     Physical vrs Informational
>>>     Natural vrs Artificial
>>>     Real vrs Imaginary
>>>     Composite vrs Characteristic
>>>     Individual vrs Collective
>>>     Atomic vrs Mediating
>>>     Specific vrs Indefinite
>>>     Continuant vrs Occurrent
>>>
>>> Not many discriminants can be found which are simultaneously 
>>> orthogonal (independent of one another) and general (can be applied 
>>> to anything) and useful (easy to clearly define and decide).   The 
>>> listing above may in fact be nearly complete (although many would 
>>> debate its specifics or suggest other candidates).
>>>
>>> Regardless of the particulars, I suggest that a better /semantic/ 
>>> model for your "layer 0" would be all and only those discriminants 
>>> which have all three qualities - independence, generality, and 
>>> utility - and hence can be employed to help define any class or 
>>> instance desired.
>>>
>>> [VK] Thanks, Dan! This is a very good guideline and framework to 
>>> work from.
>>>  
>>> Cheers,
>>>  
>>> ---Vipul The information transmitted in this electronic 
>>> communication is intended only
>>> for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
>>> confidential
>>> and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, 
>>> dissemination or other
>>> use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by 
>>> persons or
>>> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you 
>>> received this
>>> information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 
>>> 800-856-1983 and
>>> properly dispose of this information.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 17:44:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:52 GMT