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

Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot

From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:13:07 -0400
Message-ID: <5639badd0903300913r3e3df1c8h72efd4752d4bf49c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
     Hello Bijan, All,

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2009, at 16:38, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
>>  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).

  A class may not be instantiated in every single use, but it is
intended to be instantiated in some cases. To dispute that, you would
have to give me an example of a class that is never instantiated.

> It could be that the class hierachy *is* the intended output (most
> controlled vocabularies, e.g., NCI Thesaurus, SNOMED).

  Not all controlled vocabularies are ontologies.

> Even there, a lot of interesting uses will no neatly fit in that mental
> model. I think it's unhelpful.

  What mental model?

     Take care

Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
BioPAX Integration at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/biopax)
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 16:13:44 UTC

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