- From: <samwald@gmx.at>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:04:43 +0200
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Just catching up on reading papers :-) > > <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/S3/S2> > > "It is also useful to know who believes something and why. However, there > is no standard way of expressing such information about a statement [...]" > > Reification? To return to the original question: In many of the biomedical ontologies we are currently using or developing most of the biological relations that matter ARE already reified. For example, most current ontologies would not contain the statement "<A> <binds_to> <B>", rather they would contain the two statements "<binding_process> <has_participant> <A> . <binding_process> <has_participant> <B>". Statements about believe, evidence and provenance can be easily attached to "<binding_process>". We have already done this for some ontologies we developed for the Banff demo. I think that this approach will proof to be sufficient for most use cases, and that the need for reification or fine-grained labeling of graphs is generally quite low (but I guess there are exceptions). -- Matthias Samwald Yale Center for Medical Informatics, New Haven / Section on Medical Expert and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vienna / http://neuroscientific.net . -- GMX FreeMail: 1 GB Postfach, 5 E-Mail-Adressen, 10 Free SMS. Alle Infos und kostenlose Anmeldung: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freemail
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 15:04:59 UTC