- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:07:33 +0100
- To: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On 30 Mar 2009, at 16:38, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote: > Hello Bijan, All, > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Bijan Parsia > <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 30 Mar 2009, at 16:12, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote: >>> Can you name any popular ontology that does not primarily declare >>> classes and properties? >> >> I don't have to, since I'm not claiming that. > > Then it is not clear to me what you are claiming. I'm claiming that classes in OWL are not typically intended to be "instantiated" by users (in OWL). It could be that the publisher/modeller instantiates them in their modeling (e.g., FMA). It could be that the class hierachy *is* the intended output (most controlled vocabularies, e.g., NCI Thesaurus, SNOMED). It could be that the data is never going to be in an ontology or asserted to be instances of classes in any way. It could be that users will simply extend the class hierarchy. It could be that you don't say that it's a member of a named class, but you only want to infer it. Of course, people *do* use OWL as a data KB. It might be that that shall come to dominate. Even there, a lot of interesting uses will no neatly fit in that mental model. I think it's unhelpful. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 16:03:47 UTC