Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons' - ACL level of granularity?

> On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Drew McDermott wrote:

> > I'm not sure I'm agreeing or disagreeing with Chimezie (it depends on
> > what's meant by "consensus" here), but I'd like to emphasize a point
> > others have made in this discussion: Deciding to use a particular
> > ontology is not like deciding who to marry.  It's just a _vocabulary_.
> 
> [chris mungall]
> 
> This is different from most definitions of ontology I am aware of. I  
> think confusing ontology with vocabulary will get us into trouble.

Well, of course, I didn't mean they're the same thing.  I just meant
that deciding to use an ontology doesn't prevent you from using others
as well.

> This definition seemed to be along the same lines as the one in the  
> HL7 RIM, for which a criticism was recently posted on this list

I thought the problem with the HL7 RIM was the waffling between
whether a Person was an actual living being or the record thereof.

> Can two classes be declared identical if both their definitions are  
> incoherent?

Sure; it works even better that way. :)

> > [It seems to me that it would be good practice to use the earliest
> > defined term for something, partly out of courtesy and partly so
> > everyone will converge on the same term, but that's an orthogonal
> > issue.]

> Why should courtesy have anything to do with it? Surely everyone  
> should converge on the best definition, not the first? Why is the  
> first especially deserving of courtesy?

It was just a thought.  Shouldn't distract us from the main
issue. 

> I think FOAF is an ideal application ontology for its stated goals -  
> linking communities of people together, albeit with a bias towards  
> computer science types.
> 
> I don't think it is appropriate for biomedical science, and I don't  
> think your recommended practice of subclassing foaf:Person is a good  
> idea. This will lead to a hodge-podge of non-disjoint classes. Others  
> have recommended of separating a Person out from the roles a Person  
> participates in - surely this is better?
> 
> I don't see the problem here as being particularly difficult - there  
> are continuants, and there are biological continuants such as  
> organisms. These continuants participate in different processes,  
> taking on different roles at different times. See [1]

> Aside from the very serious problem of lack of formal definitions for  
> the central classes Person and Agent, there are a number of problems  
> in using FOAF for science

Oh, come on, there's a formal _definition_ of Person? 

You may have good arguments against using foaf:Person for medical
informatics.  But the same issues will arise repeatedly, and my point
is that it is impossible, unnecessary, and counterproductive to
require consensus before people start using ontologies.  We're going
to have to allow a hundred flowers to bloom and do some snipping
later.

-- 

                                         -- Drew McDermott
                                            Yale University
                                            Computer Science Department

Received on Saturday, 16 September 2006 01:07:10 UTC