W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2015

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

From: Robert Hausam <rrhausam@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:16:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+KThc-wPXjcp6t_s1BwAyLGVh7-KnGeu+d2XEqqsQaTxf88yg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Samson Tu <swt@stanford.edu>
Cc: Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com>, Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>, Sajjad Hussain <hussain@cs.dal.ca>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.hl7.org>
Yes, Samson, that's a great reminder.  I think that Lloyd may have stated
that earlier - but I didn't repeat it, and it's pretty easy to overlook.

Rob

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Samson Tu <swt@stanford.edu> wrote:

>
> On Feb 7, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Robert Hausam <rrhausam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lloyd, that's certainly correct with the "upper bound", given the
> conditions that you describe.  If an instance has 5 of "something" when
> it's declared that it should have 4, then the reasoner can clearly
> determine that the instance is invalid.
>
>
> Not if the reasoner doesn’t know that the 5 “something” are different from
> each other. In addition to OWA, OWL doesn’t make "unique name assumption"
> (UNA). When checking cardinality constraints, in addition to OWA, you need
> to state whether the individuals are distinct.
>
> SAmson
> --
> Samson Tu                                                     email:
> swt@stanford.edu
> Senior Research Scientist                               web:
> www.stanford.edu/~swt/
> Center for Biomedical Informatics Research  phone: 1-650-725-3391
> Stanford University                                          fax:
> 1-650-725-7944
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Robert Hausam, MD
Hausam Consulting LLC
+1 (801) 949-1556
rrhausam@gmail.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 17:17:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 February 2015 17:17:32 UTC