RE: [hcls] Harmonization of labels, descriptions and definitions

These discussions are all very important, and the messages and threads are often long; but I must admit, sometimes the use cases people are referring to may be buried in the text, whcih takes time to extract from all themessages.

I would suggest that use cases such as "how to use labels in ontologies" as well as how this would work in OWL1.1, should be captured on a page (from the BioONT link) in a way that we can quickly get summaries without having to refer through threads of emails. Suggestions on alterantive ways to best represent these should also be in these examples. 

For those actively particiapting in such discussions, if you would please take the time to put them onto such a page (possibly linked from http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/OntologyTaskForce). I am looking only for brief statements that are clear in meaning. This will help advance the discussions between members to some possibly practical solutions.

btw, some pages such as http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/OntologyTaskForce/bio-zen-experience appear to be mislinked, so owners should double check to see if adjustments are needed.

cheers,
Eric


-----Original Message-----
From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org on behalf of Bijan Parsia
Sent: Tue 5/29/2007 12:02 AM
To: William Bug
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls
Subject: Re: [hcls] Harmonization of labels, descriptions and definitions
 

On May 29, 2007, at 4:58 AM, William Bug wrote:

> This is exactly the point I've been making for over a year now  
> regarding use of SKOS in biomedical ontology development, and it is  
> why we use SKOS:prefLabel for all classes in BIRNLex (as well as  
> having the redundant rdfs:label for interoperability purposes).   
> The "altLabel" provides a means not only to associate lexical  
> variants but ultimately to create "namespace qualified" term sets  
> or "views" of a single ontology with the terms tailored to the  
> needs of a specific community.  There would need to be an expansion  
> of annotation support in OWL to fully implement this, but SKOS can  
> provide a means to standard that method in the lexical domain, once  
> the required annotation capabilities have been added to OWL.
[snip]

Would you mind explaining exactly what you need from the annotation  
capabilities? We have been discussing a fairly clean way to beef up  
OWL 1.1 annotations and I'd be curious to know if it handled this  
(important) case.

Cheers,
Bijan.