- From: Matthias Samwald <matthias.samwald@meduniwien.ac.at>
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 14:40:22 +0200
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53DF7F36.3080303@meduniwien.ac.at>
> TrOWL I have tried, but I have the impression it doesn't really make a classification upfront, but rather incrementally on demand. It's just an impression, but it classified HP in no time ;) It is supposed to classify everything. Maybe you don't have a problem at all. ;) - Matthias Am 04.08.2014 14:16, schrieb Andrea Splendiani: > Hi, > I didn't see the BioHackathon ML message. I have just realised my mail > setup is a bit messed up... > TrOWL I have tried, but I have the impression it doesn't really make a > classification upfront, but rather incrementally on demand. It's just > an impression, but it classified HP in no time ;) > > I will give a try to ELK and Konclude. > What I am bit puzzled with is: this is a largely used ontology. The > issue of unfeasible classification should have come up already. Either > I am doing something wrong, or nobody uses the OWL version (or I'm not > good at googling). > > best, > Andrea > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Matthias Samwald > <matthias.samwald@meduniwien.ac.at > <mailto:matthias.samwald@meduniwien.ac.at>> wrote: > > Hi Andrea, > > I remember you got the recommendation to try ELK on the > Biohackathon mailing list. Is ELK not working for you? > You might also want to give TrOWL a try if ELK is not working for > you for some reason. Konclude might also be an option as it seems > to outperform most other reasoners, but it does not have a Protege > plugin (don't know if this matters to you). You can also have a > look at the recent results of the OWL reasoner evaluation here: > http://vip.cs.man.ac.uk:8080/live.html > > I have not worked with HPO yet, so those are just some general > recommendations. > > Best, > Matthias > > > > Am 04.08.2014 13:53, schrieb Andrea Splendiani: > > Hi all, > > I have stumbled onto a problem for which I would like to hear > from your experience. > > In a project, I am using the Human Phenotype Ontology > (http://www.human-phenotype-ontology.org/). > For the sake of the project, I really only need the is_a > structure of the ontology, but as an OWL version was existing, > and as we have anyway an RDF framework to integrate data, I > was thinking of using this version. > The OWL version is not a simple representation of the is_a > structure, as it is including axioms to map phenotypes to, > from a quick inspection, anatomical parts and "qualities". > > Now, as with any ontology, I was at first trying to classify > it. This is an ontology (with imports) of around 20k classes > (<200k axioms, ~60k logical axioms). It is big, but not huge. > I simply cannot classify it in any reasonable time. > I have tried a variety of reasoners and, in my longest wait, I > have waited for days but we are under 1%). > > Does anybody have experience in classifying it ? > > If classification is unfeasible, than which use cases does the > OWL representation cater to? > > best, > Andrea Splendiani > > > >
Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 12:40:52 UTC