W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > April 2009

Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot

From: Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:26:15 +0200
Message-ID: <6aeb064b0904021126qbfab7f9yc715c49b71d5b031@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>
Cc: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Michel_Dumontier
<Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca> wrote:
>> Actually, I'd say OWL is to blame here... that is, the OWL class was
>> not properly defined.
>
> Just to clarify - it's not OWL that's the problem. It's the
> representation of Chemistry in a formal logic-based language where it
> actually matters what you say and how you say it.

Yeah, sorry, I knew I had to phrase that more correctly... it's not
the OWL standard, but whatever had been defined using OWL. These
things are pretty tricky, and if you read the IUPAC Gold Book on
definitions, it will not get much clearer either; there will be plenty
of use of owl:sameAs and all alternatives that define more loose
similarity to capture current terms...

Egon

-- 
Post-doc @ Uppsala University
http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 18:27:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:39 UTC