Re: Less strong equivalences (was Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot) from Oliver Ruebenacker on 2009-03-25 (public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org from March 2009)

From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:35:14 -0400
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>, Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5639badd0903251335p8bfbecdn8ee14db3bd625348@mail.gmail.com>

     Hello Bijan, All,

  These are not even transitive, right? So what can we do with them
reasoning-wise?

  Isn't likeness too much in the eye of the beholder to be agreed upon
universally? Why not move such concepts to more specialized ontologies
instead of OWL?

     Take care
     Oliver

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Bijan Parsia
<bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> Oh, another possibility, 4) probabilistic sameAs. That's probably more
> researchy than similarity logics, but more in the next few year timeline
> rather than in the "have no idea" timeline.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>

-- 
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 Wednesday, 25 March 2009 20:46:21 UTC