Re: [HCLS] Bridging Ontologies - with Foundational Ontologies

It is true statistical analysis of repositories expressing their  
semantics according to the same formal systems (e.g., RDFS, SKOS,  
OWL, etc.) utilized a metathesaurus of heavily utilized terms can get  
you a long way -

But - it's not clear to me whether we'll be able to evolve highly  
automated semantically-formal neuroinformatics analysis systems.  I'm  
not thinking of reasoning oriented systems, but simply analysis of  
semantic info a la the ubiquitious use of Gene Ontology in the bio- 
molecular informatics world.

Cheers,.
Bill

On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:

>
>
>> Great to hear that! It really seems that most of the promises of  
>> semantic
>> web ontologies are only realised when top-level ontologies like  
>> DOLCE are
>> used. Maybe we should evaluate the potential use of DOLCE or BFO  
>> for the
>> BioRDF tasks?
>
> [VK] Whereas I agree with the use of foundational ontologies, I may  
> not agree
> with the sweeping generalization above. Significant potential can  
> be realized by
> using not so formally organized resources such as the UMLS for  
> instance.
>
> ---Vipul
>

Bill Bug
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer

Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
www.neuroterrain.org
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
2900 Queen Lane
Philadelphia, PA    19129
215 991 8430 (ph)
610 457 0443 (mobile)
215 843 9367 (fax)


Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu







This email and any accompanying attachments are confidential. 
This information is intended solely for the use of the individual 
to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, 
distribution, or use of this email communication by others is strictly 
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us 
immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete 
all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.