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

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

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:46:21 +0000
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: <1A658DDB-9AF5-49D5-9CC0-E9AC5088C6D2@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
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.
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 21:00:11 UTC

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