- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:10:59 +0100
- To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Eric Jain wrote: > > Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >> [...] Is its semantics any different from the "creator" defined by >> the dublin core? If there isn't any, (at least from what I can >> tell), then bioPAX SHOULD NOT reinvent the wheel to mint this term >> because, if every "ontology" developed its own author term, then, >> there will be hundreds of "authors/creators" etc., that we have to >> align when the so-called BioPAX data is mixed with other kind of >> data. [...] > > Can't speak for BioPAX, but I can say that for me one problem with DC > is that it's RDF(S), so I can't use the properties in my OWL > restrictions etc! > > There are some OWL versions (Protege even allows you to import one), > but I don't know if that is a good idea, as far as I can see this > isn't official? I think it is better solution that minting a new URI. It is only one import statement. Of course, if URI for the OWL version is under a seemingly application-specific namespace, such as under protege's URI, then just copy it to a namespace that you feel comfortable. Eventually either DC is OWLed, or there is a namespace URI that most people will import to OWL DC. For you, the only change is the import statement and nothing is affected. I think it is a much much better solution than creating a bioPax:authors, chemPax:authors, mged:AuThors, etc... Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 13:11:35 UTC