- From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:32:56 -0400
- To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hello Peter, All,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/3/22 Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen@gmail.com>:
>> Chemists are not interested in single molecules (well, most are not,
>> but with increasing nanotechnology...). I was told recently that upper
>> ontologies have proper mechanisms to point out the difference between
>> (in Java terminology) objects and classes, or instances and concepts.
>
> There is that possibility.
There is an infinite number of possibilities. What is the criteria
for being relevant?
> Having different identities might be the rational scientific way to do
> things. They might be caused by different perspectives on the one
> item, or they might be caused by an actual duality of theory based on
> an actual inability to describe something in a single theory. Making
> god-like decisions about which class particular records actually
> belong to as ontologists might sound fun but in the world case it
> seems counterintuitive because it doesn't promote progress in both
> areas concurrently.
Can you give an example?
Take care
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
BioPAX Integration at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/biopax)
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2009 13:33:32 UTC