- From: Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:13:13 -0700
- To: "Oliver Ruebenacker" <curoli@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, "W3C HCLSIG hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:03:43 -0700, Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com> wrote: >> http://www.uniprot.org/tissues/229 (subject) >> http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs (predicate) >> http://purl.uniprot.org/po/0009009 (object) >> >> my concern is whether http://purl.uniprot.org/po/0009009 is intended to >> be a >> class, or intended to be an instance... since owl:sameAs is only >> supposed to >> be used to claim the "identicalness" of two individuals, not an >> individual >> to a class... > > Must be an individual, then, doesn't it? Well, the statement would *imply* that it is... so given that the individual "embryo" that was referred to as a uniprot tissue is the same individual "embryo" that the plant ontology was talking about, we can therefore conclude that (as Ben pointed-out) that this particular fly embryo is somehow embedded in some particular plant seed endosperm. Lovely... the problem with owl:sameAs is that it is much more rigourous than most of our ontologies are! I don't think we need to throw it away, but we need to be ACUTELY aware of what it MEANS, and only use it in those VERY rare cases where we are saying that "Bill Clinton" is owl:sameAs "William Jefferson Clinton" (the example from the OWL spec) M -- Mark D Wilkinson, PI Bioinformatics Assistant Professor, Medical Genetics The James Hogg iCAPTURE Centre for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research Providence Heart + Lung Institute University of British Columbia - St. Paul's Hospital Vancouver, BC, Canada
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:19:49 UTC