On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:53 PM, John Madden <john.madden@duke.edu> wrote: > Hi Oliver, > (For a medical document, it might not be *me* that insists on this > claim; it might be my employer/hospital. > They don't want people attributing meanings to the document other > than those they have had a chance > to approve, because they don't want somebody claiming the RDF/OWL > they published led to a subsequent > adverse event (by, e.g. being used in a decision support system at > some later time that attributed a different > meaning to some vocabulary item). So for example they might only > allow locally defined classes properties > to be used in the graph.) > To me, this sounds a little ridiculous. Anyone can make an ontology that "misinterprets" the data in the original document by adding superclasses and superproperties. The employer/hospital cannot prohibit someone else's ignorance. Jim -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 22:17:18 UTC