W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Interoperability note

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:19:35 -0800
Message-ID: <43822BD7.2040009@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, chris.menzel@gmail.com
CC: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, best-practice list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, welty@us.ibm.com

hi -
i like this example of adding a new superclass A   of B and C which is 
made by dropping a restriction on both B and C.
the example below with bookings sounds good.

if we want one for planes, we could look at the top level plane class.  
(I am not sure that i have the current version since i think we made 
changes as a result of our conversation when mike, chris, and i called 
chris m from ireland).

we might start with one plane class (maybe even a boeing ontology that 
has manufacturer boeing) and another top level plane class that
has another restriction even on the same property such as all values 
from EuropeanCompany and just maintain a restriction that planes have at 
least one manufacturer and make a generic plane class.

is there anything we else we should report in the oep telecon today?
when is the update coming for our internal review that results from our 
telecon?

thx,
d

Uschold, Michael F wrote:

>Good example, Alan.
>
>ChrisM: lets see if we an add this to the examples in our narrative we
>are developing.
>CHrisW, and DeborahM: can you think of a nice example in the
>airplane/travel domain? 
>
>Here's one I just thought of:
>
>"O1: hotel_reservation" "O1:flight_booking" O2:car_rental_booking" and
>"O2:plane_reservation" but no class that means booking or reservation.
>
>It could be a case of 'poor' ontology development, where there should
>have been the more abstract class.
>
>It may also arise when bringing two ontologies together, where in each,
>there was no need for the more abstract class.
>
>In either case, it involves creating a new class, and stating a subclass
>relationships.
>
>Mike
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Rector [mailto:rector@cs.man.ac.uk] 
>Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:40 PM
>To: Uschold, Michael F
>Cc: best-practice list
>Subject: Interoperability note
>
>Mike
>
>An important case we have come across frequently in mapping medical
>classes is where they are both subclasses of an interesting common
>superclass that is present in neither ontology, usually formed by
>deleting one or two restrictions from each.
>
>Our usual examples come from linking up radiology and surgery where we
>have several different versions of repair of bleeding aneurism by
>different methods but not common parent simply 'repair of bleeding
>aneurism'
>
>Closely tied to non-standard reasoning about least common subsumers and
>differences.
>
>Worth a chat
>
>Alan
>
>-----------------------
>Alan Rector
>Professor of Medical Informatics
>Department of Computer Science
>University of Manchester
>Manchester M13 9PL, UK
>TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
>FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
>www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
>www.clinical-esciences.org
>www.co-ode.org
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Deborah L. McGuinness Co-Director Knowledge Systems, AI Laboratory 
Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 Stanford University, 
Stanford, CA 94305-9020 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
(voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 20:19:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:19 GMT