- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:55:48 +0100
- To: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
- CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Daniel, Thank you for the updates! Before trying to answer you question about the link between OBI and Radlex, some content-related questions: Reading Radlex description, I wondered how the link between a special relationhip like "part" and "parent"/"children" is dealt with. Something like - a SPARQL query (when I ask for children, give me the parts) - RDFS subtyping (part rdfs:subPropertyOf child) - or dynamic interface generation (the "parent information not being encoded as such in the model, but derived when asking a visualization of the concept)? Also I wonder whether a special relationhip can always be converted in parent/child link. There are some links, like "Continuous with" that do not seem to be interpretable naturally as hierarchical ones. But I am not sure, and could not find any example in my 5 minutes browsing... Finally, what is the kind of mapping you envision/are developping? "Just" equivalence or subclass? Or more complex links? Cheers, Antoine PS: about the OBI description, wasn't there a small typo problem? What I have in the "Standards and guidelines considered" include: "We is the use ofan an alphanumeric identifier for the term versus using the human readable term name. The reason for this was to remove semantics from the unique identifier for the term.render the identifier unique and ease term obsoletion and versioning." > > Hi Antoine, > I added the OBI metadata requirements to the corresponding case > description. > I also posted my edited UCR for Radlex. > Daniel > > At 10:30 AM 2/10/2007, Antoine Isaac wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >>> >>> >>> A few of the communities I've been working with for SKOS use cases >>> have come together to identify a set of metadata elements they need >>> to be associated with terms in their published terminologies. I feel >>> these should be considered for additional SKOS requirements. >> >> >> The metadata elements you give are indeed now considered (at least >> the general categories they belong to) in the candidate requirement >> list, or in the issue list. >> But of course the items there need further definition. Alan has >> accepted to do some investigation on this: >> >>> ACTION: Alan to write down the general documentation requirements, >>> in particular to those that are related to literal values, and how >>> to represent that in skos [recorded in >>> http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09] >>> ACTION: Alan write up the preferredLabel modelling issue [recorded >>> in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action01] >> >> >> >> I think definitively you should collaborate together on that! Your >> OBI list is a good input. By the way, I think it should appear >> explicitly in the corresponding case description, shouldn't it? >> >> Thanks for your input, >> >> Antoine >> >>> Thanks >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> Here is a list of metadata properties and definitions: >>> http://obi.sourceforge.net/ontologyInformation/MinimalMetadata.html >>> >>> This list was compiled over the last months, starting from the >>> RU_metadata.owl, the BirnLex metadata requirements and the metadata >>> annotations provided by the NCIT (all of which can be found on the >>> OBI-Wiki at >>> https://www.cbil.upenn.edu/fugowiki/index.php/RepresentationalUnitMetadataTable). >>> >>> This minimal subset of metadata properties was agreed upon, and had its >>> definitions finalized by the OBI metadata subgroup during the last two >>> weeks. >>> The added cardinalities are still under discussion, as is the >>> implementation and in some cases the domain of the metadata properties. >>> >>> > > > >
Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 15:56:00 UTC