W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: questions on SKOS

From: Bill Bug <wbug@ncmir.ucsd.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:46:57 -0500
Message-Id: <12034CBD-1C27-4628-8AF9-D78ED98D2794@ncmir.ucsd.edu>
Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org
To: Daniel Rubin <rubin@smi.stanford.edu>
Sorry for the duplicate post, but there a few typos I missed that can  
make the message below a bit unclear.


On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Daniel Rubin wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> An interesting thread related to SKOS on another list. Bill Bug  
> posted some questions to which people on this list might want to  
> respond.
> Daniel
> I may be taking too simple a view of this issue, but my sense is  
> the only part of SKOS that can be useful without creating an overly  
> complex graph of entailments that will require a lot of custom  
> logic are the annotation properties they put in the original SKOS  
> OWL file.
> Though we do eventually want to be able to trace provenance on a  
> declared synonymies, my sense is what we need NOW are shared  
> annotation properties used across all OBO ontologies for things  
> like "synonym", "abbreviation", "scope note", "history note",  
> "definition", "OBO definition" - just to avoid the babel of home- 
> grown annotation properties that will each necessitate creating and  
> maintaining custom logic (or annotation property maps) in order to  
> process.  This is the simple objective I'd hoped SKOS would adopt  
> first, before leaping to the more complex objective of providing a  
> shared framework to support expressing logical entailments related  
> to "acts of speech".
> Am I'm being too facile in thinking such a shared set of lexically- 
> oriented annotation properties - opaque to the DIG reasoners -  
> would be of use to OBI and the broader community.  Should we not  
> expect this to come from SKOS, or should we all simply use (or  
> extend) the annotation properties that come with OBOinOWL?
> Cheers,
> Bill
> On Nov 19, 2007, at 6:07 PM, Chris Mungall wrote:
>> I think the broader/narrower/exact type relations are potentially
>> useful for encoding the relation between a universal and a linguistic
>> unit. e.g. synonyms in obo format. I'm not sure to what extent this
>> is overloading SKOS.
>> On Nov 19, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>> I guess my basic question is, what does the broader / narrower
>>> relationships mean? "Broader concepts are typically rendered as
>>> parents in a concept hierarchy" Do you have any better way to think
>>> about them than "the relationship to use instead of  using  
>>> superclass
>>> properly, if you are in a rush"?
>>> -Alan

William Bug, M.S., M.Phil.                                         		 
email: wbug@ncmir.ucsd.edu
Ontological Engineer (Programmer Analyst III)		work: (610) 457-0443
Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN)
National Center for Microscopy & Imaging Research (NCMIR)
Dept. of Neuroscience, School of Medicine
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093

Please note my email has recently changed
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 16:47:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:51 UTC