RE: NeuronDB RDF and OWL

Alsn,

Am in agreement with the general argument presented in this e-mail and would
like to propose a small experiment:

1. Let's do the data integration exercise with the current modeling approaches.
2. Repeat (1) with enriched modeling and descriptions.
3. For a set of queries, compare and contrast the answers obtained vis-à-vis
completeness/soundness/precision/recall?

Assuming we get a good result, could we shoe the difference in results for a
given query in the demo? Wondering whether this is feasible and should be in
scope for the demo?

Please see some responses to the other comments mentioned in the e-mail.

> Put another way, the goal might be stated as wanting to get both
> *all* available answers to our questions, and *only* correct answers
> to our questions, and both the above contribute to achieving that goal.

[VK] I agree. Our answers need to be sound and complete. The point is whether
richer modeling gets us closer to that goal?

> Regarding this sort of integration not being feasible before, I'd
> stay away from that argument. I do hope to show that, as a matter of
> fact, this sort of integration is rarely done, that it is possible to
> do better with an acceptable level of effort, and that both the
> semantic web tools and ethos help make it easier and more fruitful.

[VK] I agree. Feasibility = ability to do better data integration with an
acceptable level of effort. One way to do this is to contrast it with how
the stuff would be done using a RDBMS and point out the advantages.

> But RDF or OWL
> this kind of thing is (or should be) common practice, we incur no
> penalty, and having it in this form makes it more straightforward to
> integrate across independently constructed ontologies - sameas,
> subclass, equivalent class all provide standard ways of making the
> connection. Compare this to the effort to merge two relational
> schemas, where gender columns are used in various tables, named
> differently, and where one database uses "M" and "F" and the other
> uses "Male" and "Female".

[VK] Would propose that this is exactly the kind of argument that would be best
illustrated in the demo with real examples. Of course you would
have to give reasons of how you overcame the computational overhead + why the
"overkill" is worth it..
And, this could lead to a bunch of modeling best practices which would be
grounded in real data integration-based justifications.

> Technically, the fact that
> there is less pain involved with schema extension and evolution when
> using OWL/RDF then when using traditional RDMS table oriented schema
> reduces the effort to integrate a large number of sources.

[VK] You are hitting all the standard value proposition points we have been
discussing. Was wondering if we can illustrate it in our demo with some real
examples? Of course, we will need to figure out these examples along the way as
we develop the demo.

> There have been previous
> demonstrations of this sort of shallow alignment, and from the point
> of view of showing something novel, it would be nice to go beyond
> that. Given what's been done so far, and the responses I've seen to
> the analysis and suggestions people have been offering, I'm feeling
> optimistic.

[VK] I agree with the caveat that we demonstrate that going beyond gives us real
value. Also what does going beyond mean? Using formal ontologies, using
inferences? Was wondering if we could characterize this in a concrete manner?

Cheers,

---Vipul





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 Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 10:42:34 UTC