- From: <samwald@gmx.at>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 18:22:43 +0200
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> >Statements about believe, evidence and provenance can be easily > >attached to "<binding_process>". > > Hmm. They could, but that isn't really internally coherent. If this > is supposed to be the name of a process, then its doesn't make sense > to say that it has a provenance or that it is subject to belief. That depends on the semantics of the relations you use to relate the biological entity with believe, evidence and provenance. Change "this statement is believed by..." to "the existence of this entity is believed by...", change "this statement was derived from document..." to "the existence of this entity is also described by document..." and so on. > >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, > > It will work for a while, then it will break when things get more > complicated. Its a hack; hacks work, but one shouldn't forget that > they are hacks, This is not a hack at all when you use the properties I described above. It is fully inside standard RDF and OWL semantics and can be expressed in RDF/XML without any problems. Introducing thousands of tiny RDF files just to be able to refer to the statements separately -- THAT is a hack and will break when things get more complicated. The approach I described above should scale without problems. cheers, Matthias Samwald ---------- Yale Center for Medical Informatics, New Haven / Section on Medical Expert and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vienna / http://neuroscientific.net -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 16:22:55 UTC