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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:53:52 -0500
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-Id: <436551CF-8CB6-40E4-909D-8290FCD2EE1C@ihmc.us>
To: eric neumann <ekneumann@gmail.com>

On Mar 25, 2009, at 4:31 PM, eric neumann wrote:

> Bijan,
>
> From your descriptions, I can't tell which one would best handle the  
> following situation:
>
> "Object 1 refers to exactly the same molecule (exemplar) as object 2  
> refers to"

That sure sounds like sameAs, applied to molecules. Why isn't sameAs  
good enough here? What goes wrong?

>
> This is the kind of "similar" used in most internal genomic/compound  
> systems...
>
> <http://myOrg.com/sw/mxid/PHLP0005>  :isIdentifiedwith  <http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P16233 
> >
>
>
> It really isn't probabilistic anymore since the scientists have all  
> agreed and defined their entry based on some of the info from the  
> public entity; for most situations it is an 'exact mapping' to the  
> referred molecules. I agree owl:sameAs was not intended for this  
> kind of relation, but is is extremely common, and a specialized  
> relation for this would be very much desired. : )
>
> Remember also, even though these URIs may be of instances in terms  
> of records, the molecule referenced is not really "a specific single  
> molecule" found in nature (conceptually possible, but never thought  
> of this way in may experience). In fact, this is almost always the  
> case in molecular biology (genes, genomes, SNPs, proteins, etc),  
> while when dealing with macro-humans, we can refer to an exact  
> instance in the real world.

I assume that the intended referent is a 'typical molecule' or a  
'molecular pattern' rather than a particular, single molecule. Yes, of  
course: but that doesn't affect the use of sameAs. Whatever these  
'molecules' are that your ontology is talking about, sameAs means the  
same one of those.

>
> Perhaps we really need a set of basic relations (and meta classing?)  
> for this scale of scientific phenomena to keep it distinct from  
> organism examples in clinical studies and experiments...

The basic ontology issues of identity and so on should work at any  
scale from quarks to galaxy clusters.

Pat

>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes





Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 06:55:38 UTC

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