- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:20:53 +0100
- To: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Argh, I said I wouldn't, but this came after. On 30 Mar 2009, at 17:13, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote: > 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. Any NCI Thesaurus class. >> 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. NCI Thesarus is a controlled vocabularies generated by an ontology. This is a standard use of ontologies. I guess I should be surprised that you don't know that, but it turns out I'm not! Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 16:17:07 UTC