W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Soft ontology reuse

From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:08:37 +0000
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-lod\@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <WM!de4f4ef3bff78cfdd584cb5417f54045ce29aff8a1baea0b5a2957e63c08d3eed73820768cb8f2065d62ae8566691054!@mailhub-mx4.ncl.ac.uk>

Indeed -- I wrote up this idea a while back, where I called them
"connection points". In my case there were two main motivations -- one
was to avoid making decisions in terms of upper ontologies that you
didn't need to. The other was to avoid bringing in bloat (bringing in
the NCBI taxonomy would be an obvious example).


http://www.russet.org.uk/blog/2955

I was hoping to formalise the idea a bit more but alas have not found
time.

Phil


Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk> writes:

> No, you are right. The soft reuse has to still work if someone actually do the
> owl import of upstream - in a way if editors like Protege could have a "remove
> import on save" mechanism that would do it.
>
> Perhaps a new property for the soft import should be added on the owl:Ontology
> instead of owl:imports -- a kind of optional import? (I have used seeAlso)
>
> I would not want to suggest soft reuse for cheating to hide design errors in
> ontologies, just to avoid forcing upstream ontology loading onto your users if
> it is not an essential upper ontology (e.g. you don't rely on its hierarchies
> or inferences).
>
> The softer approach of just seeAlso/amps mapping must be used instead if your ontology is not compatible. (or .. fix your ontology  :-)
>
> In the soft import approach, to see if it is compatible, you have to import both the upstream and your ontology (e.g. a myontology-plus-imports.owl)
>
>
>
> On 20 Jan 2017 1:58 pm, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
> Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:01:22 -0800, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> wrote:
>>> No, they are open. They are just not 'linked' to other ontologies. In
>>> fact, many people would say that the way some of us think about 'reuse'
>>> of ontologies is highly problematic but that is an entirely different
>>> story. Keep in mind that the discussion here is a reflection on
>>> Alberto's email, not about whether LOV is useful or not (and I clearly
>>> believe it is).
>>
>> Yes, directly reusing ontologies (e.g. owl:imports) can come with many
>> technical challenges such as inconsitencies at reasoning level (e.g. OWL)
>> or network dependencies (purl.org still fresh in mind)
>>
>> So I understand many don't want to do such strong reuse - indeed I have myself
>> moved instead to a model of a "soft reuse", with extensions of existing
>> ontologies through "citations" instead.
>
>
> This all sounds like a good idea to me, although I think it may well
> integrate poorly with if someone else is NOT doing the same. For
> example, if your ontology is inconsistent with another that you soft
> import, then I am import both, my ontology now becomes inconsistent
> perhaps unexpectedly.
>
> Phil
>
>

-- 
Phillip Lord,                           Phone: +44 (0) 191 208 7827
Lecturer in Bioinformatics,             Email: phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk
School of Computing Science,            http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord
Room 914 Claremont Tower,               skype: russet_apples
Newcastle University,                   twitter: phillord
NE1 7RU                                 
Received on Monday, 23 January 2017 13:09:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:22:37 UTC