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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 April 2009 18:27:06 GMT