- From: <samwald@gmx.at>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:37:13 +0200
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> > <protein_a_expression_process> <has_participant> <protein_a> . > > <protein_a_expression_process> <located_in> <tissue_b> . > > <protein_a_expression_process> <described_by> <source_c> . > > The "protein expression process" class that needs to be introduced here > does seem a bit like bending over backwards [...] > also you need to introduce > an > additional predicate, "has_participant". This would certainly work, > however > >from my point of view the best solution is the solution that uses the > fewest custom concepts, Hi Eric, The choice of this design pattern is not arbitrary, it is based on the OBO Relation Ontology [1], BFO and the OWL version of the Gene Ontoloy, which are becoming widely accepted. Other foundational ontologies (like DOLCE) have similar relations and entities. In other words: I have not introduced this design pattern to conform to my suggested approach. A well-designed ontology would use such classes and relations right from the start. Using such a design pattern increases opportunities for interoperability between ontologies significantly. 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 17:37:28 UTC