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

RE: Is OWL useful at all for Quantitative Science?

From: Miller, Michael D (Rosetta) <Michael_Miller@Rosettabio.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:56:24 -0700
Message-ID: <C9EDB84D403E654CB78E37A506E406AF02313B4B@ussemx1101.merck.com>
To: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@ccf.org>, "Oliver Ruebenacker" <curoli@gmail.com>, "public-semweb-lifesci" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
hi all,

i agree strongly with Chimezie, there are much better methodologies to
do quantitative science.  but once a result is arrived at (the measured
distance between two cities as opposed to the process of measuring the
distance), that can be captured by ontologies.

cheers,
michael

Michael Miller
Lead Software Developer
Rosetta Biosoftware Business Unit
www.rosettabio.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Chimezie Ogbuji
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:26 AM
> To: Oliver Ruebenacker; public-semweb-lifesci
> Subject: Re: Is OWL useful at all for Quantitative Science?
> 
> My sense is that OWL (or any other 'truth'-based knowledge 
> representation
> languages) is not that useful for quantitative science (at 
> least not by
> itself).  Many of the work-arounds to this shortcoming seem 
> rudimentary at
> best:
> 
> - Modeling of 'may' in OWL
> - Direct incorporation of probability into description logics
> - Datatype reasoning
> - Increased use of external predicates and function symbols
> - Modeling compromises (such as trying to retrofit 
> quantitative concepts
> into binary concepts)
> 
> This is just my sense of things.
>  
> ----------------------
> Chimezie (chee-meh) Thomas-Ogbuji (oh-bu-gee)
> Heart and Vascular Institute (Clinical Investigations)
> Cleveland Clinic (ogbujic@ccf.org)
> Ph.D. Student Case Western Reserve University
> (chimezie.thomas-ogbuji@case.edu)
> 
> 
> On 3/30/09 9:38 PM, "Oliver Ruebenacker" <curoli@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >      Hello, All,
> > 
> >   There recent discussion has made me wonder, whether OWL is at all
> > useful to do quantitative science, if we insist that it is used
> > correctly (incorrect OWL seems to be useful).
> > 
> >   Can any one give me a simple example of a useful application of
> > correct OWL in quantitative science?
> > 
> >   I have tried to come up with a simple example. Feel free 
> to come up
> > with a simpler one:
> > 
> >   Express in correct OWL: Washington DC is further away from Boston
> > than New York City
> > 
> >   Use case: I want to fly with my helicopter from Boston to 
> either DC
> > or NYC, whichever is closer.
> > 
> >      Take care
> >      Oliver
> 
> 
> ===================================
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> 
> Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
> in America by U.S. News & World Report (2008).  
> Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
> a complete listing of our services, staff and
> locations.
> 
> 
> Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
> only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
> and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
> law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
> you have received this communication in error,  please
> contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
> its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 14:57:10 UTC

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