RE: Tools

- Xiaoshu
>I actually hold a bit different opinion on this.  I think at the 
beginning
>stage, one should try to do hand editing.  I played around with Protégé
>before, I think because of historic reasons, it uses a lot of terms in
>semantic network.  I saw a lot of people discussing ontologies using 
"slot",
>"roles", etc. I don't have any grudge on protégé, which I think is a 
great
>software.  But this sort of dialect is not healthy to advance SW
>technologies. And I also that see many ontologies are developed with an 
OO
>thinking. Doing it manually actually helps to understand the technology, 
at
>least that is my experience.  But of course, tool is useful to speed 
things
>up but only when people knows what the tool are doing for them.

Very much agree with your point here! 

For example, in HL7 RIM framework, the concept "role" has its specific 
meaning and it is confusing to mix with protege's "role" concept. 

We also have the need to express rules that associate with a ontology. 
Many ontology editors lacks this feature. 

At the moment, we write our ontologies and rules in N3[1] using a simple 
text editor.  N3 offers very good readability, but a simple editor does 
not give a reasonable visualization, nor provide any validation 
capabilities.  Hand editing can never be completely eliminated, but the 
need for proper tools is very strong.

So this us back to Eric's call for a task force on "tools" evaluation and 
recommendation


-Eric
>I think a useful question *this* group might consider is "are these 
>general tools directly useful by the HCLS domain, or is something 
>more specific helpful". To elaborate on this further and ground this 
>in specific suggestions, one area of work I could see occurring in 
>the HCLSIG might be to form a "Tools Task-force". This task force (as 
>a start) might take the DOAP [1] descriptions of tools being 
>described in the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment working 
>group [2] (and elsewhere) and annotate these with characteristics 
>more relevant to the HCLS community. Annotations might include 
>associating tags that are more specific and of particular interest to 
>the HCLS domain, usage and implementation experiences, how these 
>tools are being used in production, what worked what didn't. etc. 

Helen


[1] Notation 3: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer 

Helen

 



"wangxiao" <wangxiao@musc.edu> 
Sent by: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
10/14/2005 01:52 PM
Please respond to
<wangxiao@musc.edu>


To
"'public-semweb-lifesci'" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: Tools








-Eric,

> Helen's point is a very good one.
> 
> At the risk of stating what may or may not be obvious to all, 
> there are several *general* tools that are focused on helping 
> people create ontologies that may be useful.  In no 
> particular order ...

Here is my two cents on the topics.

I actually hold a bit different opinion on this.  I think at the beginning
stage, one should try to do hand editing.  I played around with Protégé
before, I think because of historic reasons, it uses a lot of terms in
semantic network.  I saw a lot of people discussing ontologies using 
"slot",
"roles", etc. I don't have any grudge on protégé, which I think is a great
software.  But this sort of dialect is not healthy to advance SW
technologies. And I also that see many ontologies are developed with an OO
thinking. Doing it manually actually helps to understand the technology, 
at
least that is my experience.  But of course, tool is useful to speed 
things
up but only when people knows what the tool are doing for them.

Xiaoshu