W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Less strong equivalences (was Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot)

From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:54:33 -0400
Message-ID: <5639badd0903251354y76a9be56kb3dbd387fc2a68a3@mail.gmail.com>
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>
     Hello Bijan,

  If a few simple and obvious question is already unwelcome, then
there is no need to engage.

     Take care
     Oliver

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Bijan Parsia
<bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2009, at 20:35, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
>
>>    Hello Bijan, All,
>
> Hello Oliver.
>
>>  These are not even transitive, right?
>
> Which? I have 4 or so sketches.
>
> Similarity can be transitive, for example. Transitivity isn't the only thing
> one might want to do.
>
>> So what can we do with them
>> reasoning-wise?
>
> Depends on the relation proposed. Thus far we've just sketched things in a
> very broad way. Clear requirements haven't been developed.
>
> I'm not sure why you are so knee jerk against exploring possibilities.
>
>>  Isn't likeness too much in the eye of the beholder
>
> No.
>
> Similarity is one sort of possible relation and there are many similarity
> metrics possible. And many ways of user defining it. Thats sort of the point
> of having a logic.
>
>> to be agreed upon
>> universally?
>
> I regard universal agreement as a non-goal.
>
>> Why not move such concepts to more specialized ontologies
>> instead of OWL?
>
> OWL isn't an ontology.
>
> We're talking about what might be useful relations to have expressible with
> standard behavior up to and including inference support. I.e., thinks which
> are extensions or layers on OWL.
>
> Of course, you can axiomitize arbitrary distinct equivalence relationship in
> OWL since you have Transitivity, Reflexivity, and Symmetry. So that is, of
> course, another option. It won't work with counting, but perhaps that's ok
> for some purposes. It should be mentioned as an option of course.
>
> Of course, if people don't think investigations along these lines are
> fruitful, I'm happy to drop it.
>
> 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 20:55:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:41 UTC