- From: <samwald@gmx.at>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:19:52 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> That will get you so far, but you have to be VERY > careful. Will other uses of these relations > retain these very refined meanings this > precisely? I guess that can be said about ANY conceivable approach. People that do not care can make mistakes, whatever approach we choose. > Suppose > someone wants to say that an assertion made by C > is wrong because it mis-uses a name to refer to > the wrong entity. I don't think that the large majority of biomedical projects will require us to make such statements. As I said, it is clear that we can think of scenarios where we need RDF reification or something similar -- however, most of these scenarios will not be encountered by the large majority of projects. Time will tell. > One cannot get a > satisfactory logic of propositional attitudes > (such as belief) by burying them into 'opaque > relations' and using a conventional assertional > logic. I guess we have different standards about what is satisfactory in this context and what is not. In my view, a basic ontology similar to the already existing SWAN ontology [1] would be sufficient for all practical needs. There is no need to come up with an intricate logic of propositional attitudes to implement something like this. > RDF, yes: OWL no. The problem arises from > equality substitution, and owl:sameAs is equality. I'm afraid I do not understand what you are referring to. cheers, Matthias Samwald [1] http://www2007.org/workshops/paper_145.pdf ---------- 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 17:20:16 UTC