- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:37:59 -0400
- To: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>
- CC: Peter.Hendler@kp.org, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org
On 06/07/2013 01:40 PM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:> > I think life sciences have been early adopters for a while so this may > be a bit of preaching to the converted :-) I sure hope so! :) On 06/07/2013 02:00 PM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:44:55AM -0700, Peter.Hendler@kp.org wrote: >> We'll still argue about whether we use SNOMED roles, make HL7 rim classes >> and roles or openEHR or something else. > > Asking for a single extensive ontology about the world - or even about a > limited subject - that suits all needs is a bit naive. Agreed. That's why RDF approach that is advocated does not make that assumption. > > The nice thing about RDF is that you can have all of them in a single triple > store, map them onto each other and make up your own roles if none of them > suit you. Exactly. The Yosemite Manifesto at http://goo.gl/mBUrZ was intentionally kept simple, but the issue of how semantic alignment can be achieved was also addressed in the workshop. See slides at: http://dbooth.org/2013/semtech/slides/03-DavidBooth-rdf-as-universal.pdf All slides from the workshop, and some videos of the workshop that were kindly made by Tom Munnecke -- Thank you Tom! -- are available at: http://dbooth.org/2013/semtech/ David
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 20:38:30 UTC