W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > January 2007

AW: Versioning vs Temporal modeling of Patient State

From: Tanja Sieber <tanja.sieber@t-dos.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:46:26 +0100
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <KNEHLJDGCAJHFAHOOMOHAEEPFKAA.tanja.sieber@t-dos.de>

I know that there is a PHD thesis facing the challenges of ontology
evolution:
Stojanovic, Ljiljana
Methods and Tools for Ontology Evolution
Universitat Karlsruhe, Fak. f. Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Diss. v.
05.08.2004.

An online version here:
http://www.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/cgi-bin/psview?document=/2004/wiwi/10&searc
h=/2004/wiwi/10

I did not check, if there are the answers exactly to your questions, but
maybe you find some other useful approaches,
Tanja



:: -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
:: Von: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
:: [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Kashyap,
:: Vipul
:: Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Januar 2007 12:27
:: An: Bijan Parsia; dirk.colaert@agfa.com
:: Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu; w3c semweb hcls
:: Betreff: RE: Versioning vs Temporal modeling of Patient State
::
::
::
::
:: Is there any work in the literature related to:
::
:: - Defining what and when a version is?
:: - Do all updates necessarily lead to a new version?
:: - Is there a utility to instance versioning?
::
:: The observation about the utility of knowledge base update and
:: revision is an
:: astute one. IMHO the utility of instance versioning is not clear either.
::
:: Just my 2 cents,
::
:: ---Vipul
::
::
:: > -----Original Message-----
:: > From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
:: [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-
:: > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
:: > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 5:28 AM
:: > To: dirk.colaert@agfa.com
:: > Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu; 'w3c semweb hcls'; public-semweb-lifesci-
:: > request@w3.org
:: > Subject: Re: Versioning vs Temporal modeling of Patient State
:: >
:: >
:: > On Jan 12, 2007, at 9:36 AM, dirk.colaert@agfa.com wrote:
:: >
:: > > Recently I had an interesting conversation with Werner Cuesters,
:: > > professor in Bufallo and colleague of Barry Smith. He has some
:: > > theory about ontology maintenance and versioning and it considers
:: > > both "classes" and "instances". Both can change either because you
:: > > made en error, either you view on the world changed, either because
:: > > the world changed . It turns out that you can only handle changes
:: > > if you know for each change exactly what de reason of the change
:: > > was. That reason should be documented in the system.
:: > [snip]
:: >
:: > The standard lingo for this is that a change to the knowledge base
:: > due to a change in the *world* is called an *update* whereas a change
:: > in your knowledge base due to a change in *your knowledge* of the
:: > (current static) world is called a *revision*. The locus classicus
:: > for this, IMHO, is:
:: > 	<http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/417296.html>
:: >
:: > Following there model theoretic accounts, there is a spate of work
:: > defining reasoning services that compute the updated or revisied
:: > knowledge base given a proposed update or revision. E.g., recently:
:: > 	<http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/~clu/papers/archive/kr06c.pdf>
:: >
:: > The utility of model oriented revision and update for expressive
:: > logics is, IMHO, not fully established, though it is conceptually
:: > useful in my experience. There is, of course, a large chunk of work
:: > on revising (and even updating) belief *bases*, that is, attending
:: > primarily to the *asserted* set of formulae.
:: >
:: > Hope this helps.
:: >
:: > Cheers,
:: > Bijan.
:: >
:: >
::
::
::
::
::
:: THE INFORMATION TRANSMITTED IN THIS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IS
:: INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED
:: AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED MATERIAL.  ANY
:: REVIEW, RETRANSMISSION, DISSEMINATION OR OTHER USE OF OR TAKING
:: OF ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE UPON, THIS INFORMATION BY PERSONS OR
:: ENTITIES OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS PROHIBITED.  IF
:: YOU RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION IN ERROR, PLEASE CONTACT THE
:: SENDER AND THE PRIVACY OFFICER, AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF THIS INFORMATION.
::
::
::
::

____________
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit
Version: AVK 17.1948 from 11.01.2007
Virus news: www.antiviruslab.com
Received on Friday, 12 January 2007 11:46:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:22 UTC