- From: Nigam Shah <nigam@stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:34:09 -0700
- To: "'Michel_Dumontier'" <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>, "'Matthias Samwald'" <samwald@gmx.at>, <brandizi@ebi.ac.uk>, "'Eric Neumann'" <eneumann@teranode.com>
- Cc: "'W3C HCLSIG hcls'" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "'M. Scott Marshall'" <marshall@science.uva.nl>
>Fantastic material Nigam (and co)! I hope you don't mind if I use some >for my 4th year bioinformatics class :-) By all means... >Couple of points: > >Problem: Asserting disjointness between classes that are definable. >Example (slide 100): Rural Area and Urban Area are disjoint; Woomera is >initially asserted to be a rural area, and it is later develops into an >urban area. How do you intend to manage this change? Will you then >create a new instance of Woomera, assert it as an urban area, and link >it to the rural Woomera? Better to not make these disjoint.... We don't handle time in this tutorial at all...(mainly to keep life simple). I don't have an easy fix for the case that you raise. The example is intended to explain the meaning of disjointness in an intuitive manner. >Problem: Ontology normalization. >Slide 108: "An InfectiousPneumonia is either a BacterialPneumonia or a >ViralPneumonia." An infectious pneumonia is a pneumonia caused by an >infectious agent. Rather that asserting the union of specific agent >caused pneumonia, one should instead define a class of infectious >agents. Thus, we can automatically discover whether the agent is in fact >infectious. Moreover, this is easier to maintain. Again, the Pneumonia ontology is only for teaching the basics of OWL in under 2 hrs. In fact, if you read the definitions closely, there are a few mistakes built in (which the classifier will later find ;-)). The assumption that InfectiousPneumonia is either a BacterialPneumonia or a ViralPneumonia is mainly to keep the tutorial ontology small. If it did it for a hospital, what you say is absolutely correct. >Slide 115: providing definitions for property characteristics would be >useful here - the difference between functional/inverse function may not >be clear from these examples (as a SIN is also functional - at least in >Canada) Point taken (didn't make much sense is EU either ;-)). Regards, Nigam.
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:34:59 UTC