- From: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
- Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 08:37:46 -0400
- To: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Alan -- (Also just catching up) Another advantage of "nonsemantic identifiers" with a (possibly 1:N) mapping(s) to "semantic identifiers" is that the former can conveniently be structured into different hierarchies and DAGs, to which a mapping can be applied as needed to get the English meanings. A little example [1] of this came up in a taxonomy discussion on another list recently. Just my 2p worth. -- Adrian [1] http://www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/EntertainmentTaxonomy1.agent Internet Business Logic (R) Executable open vocabulary English Online at www.reengineeringllc.com Shared use is free Adrian Walker Reengineering PO Box 1412 Bristol CT 06011-1412 USA Phone: USA 860 583 9677 Cell: USA 860 830 2085 Fax: USA 860 314 1029 At 06:43 PM 7/8/2006 +0200, you wrote: >All > >Just catching up. > >Could I strongly support the following. If there is one repeatedly >confirmed lesson from the medical communities experience with large >terminologies/ontologies/ it is to separate the "terms" from the >"entities". There are always linguistic artefacts, and language >changes more fluidly in both time and space than the underlying >entities. (In medical informatics this is sometimes quaintly >phrased as using "nonsemantic identifiers"). > >Regards > >Alan > >On 5 Jul 2006, at 22:43, William Bug wrote: > >> >>By the way, the "mapping" I refer to above linking instance data >>where ever it may reside (primary data repositories, pooled/ >>analyzed/interpreted data, the scientific literature) to entities >>in the ontologies requires reference to the lexicon - the TERMS >>used to describe the ontological fundamentals by the scientists >>reporting them. This is true whether an algorithm or a human is >>trying to understand and interpret a collection of instance data in >>the context of the relevant knowledge framework, even if that >>framework resides in the head of the human researcher. >> >>I like to think of this distinction as being very coarsely >>analogous to the distinction between the physical data model in an >>RDBMS and the many tools used to make that more abstracted, >>normalized collection of related entities directly useful for >>specific applications - e.g., SQL SELECT statements, VIEWs, and/or >>Materialized VIEWS. Maintaining these as distinct elements goes a >>long way toward ensuring the abstraction is re-usable for a large >>set of applications, while simultaneously being able to support >>each application's detailed requirements through custom de- normalization. >> >>This is why I like to keep the lexicon distinct from the ontology. >>They are intimately linked. No ontology is free of lexical >>artifacts (I'm not certain it can or should be), anymore than a >>lexical graph can be assembled without representing semantic >>relations. Analysis of the lexicon can inform how to adapt the >>semantic graph in the ontology - make it more commensurate with the >>current state of knowledge as expressed by domain experts, and >>review of term use in the context of the ontology can be a great >>help in creating effective, structured, controlled terminological >>resources. However, the two types of knowledge resource are >>constructed via different process, support different Use Cases, and >>rely on different fundamental relations at their core, however >>intimately they may be linked. > >----------------------- >Alan Rector >Professor of Medical Informatics >School of Computer Science >University of Manchester >Manchester M13 9PL, UK >TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6149/6188 >FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204 >www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig >www.clinical-esciences.org >www.co-ode.org > > >
Received on Sunday, 9 July 2006 12:38:31 UTC