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

Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:20:53 +0100
Message-Id: <2BE8FFE7-0C9F-4BDD-9D21-FD1C542C9872@cs.man.ac.uk>
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

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