- From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:37:13 -0800
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine, see below: At 07:55 AM 2/12/2007, Antoine Isaac wrote: >Hi Daniel, > >Thank you for the updates! Before trying to answer you question >about the link between OBI and Radlex, some content-related questions: > >Reading Radlex description, I wondered how the link between a >special relationhip like "part" and "parent"/"children" is dealt >with. Something like >- a SPARQL query (when I ask for children, give me the parts) >- RDFS subtyping (part rdfs:subPropertyOf child) >- or dynamic interface generation (the "parent information not being >encoded as such in the model, but derived when asking a >visualization of the concept)? If you are asking about how queries will work on RadLex, it will be via either SPARQL or a custom interface to an application that consumes the terminology. >Also I wonder whether a special relationhip can always be converted >in parent/child link. There are some links, like "Continuous with" >that do not seem to be interpretable naturally as hierarchical ones. >But I am not sure, and could not find any example in my 5 minutes browsing... This is basically the issue that RadLex is an ontology and not a simple terminology. "Hierarchy" depends on the relationship used to construct it. So RadLex actually has multiple hierarchies. >Finally, what is the kind of mapping you envision/are developping? >"Just" equivalence or subclass? Or more complex links? Two initially-- synonymy and subclass. Later, we expect people to compose atomic terms (post-coordination) to describe composite entities. >Cheers, > >Antoine > >PS: about the OBI description, wasn't there a small typo problem? >What I have in the "Standards and guidelines considered" include: >"We is the use ofan an alphanumeric identifier for the term versus >using the human readable term name. The reason for this was to >remove semantics from the unique identifier for the term.render the >identifier unique and ease term obsoletion and versioning." > >> >>Hi Antoine, >>I added the OBI metadata requirements to the corresponding case description. >>I also posted my edited UCR for Radlex. >>Daniel >> >>At 10:30 AM 2/10/2007, Antoine Isaac wrote: >> >>>Hi Daniel, >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>A few of the communities I've been working with for SKOS use >>>>cases have come together to identify a set of metadata elements >>>>they need to be associated with terms in their published >>>>terminologies. I feel these should be considered for additional >>>>SKOS requirements. >>> >>> >>>The metadata elements you give are indeed now considered (at least >>>the general categories they belong to) in the candidate >>>requirement list, or in the issue list. >>>But of course the items there need further definition. Alan has >>>accepted to do some investigation on this: >>> >>>>ACTION: Alan to write down the general documentation >>>>requirements, in particular to those that are related to literal >>>>values, and how to represent that in skos [recorded in >>>>http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09] >>>>ACTION: Alan write up the preferredLabel modelling issue >>>>[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action01] >>> >>> >>> >>>I think definitively you should collaborate together on that! Your >>>OBI list is a good input. By the way, I think it should appear >>>explicitly in the corresponding case description, shouldn't it? >>> >>>Thanks for your input, >>> >>>Antoine >>> >>>>Thanks >>>>Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>>Here is a list of metadata properties and definitions: >>>>http://obi.sourceforge.net/ontologyInformation/MinimalMetadata.html >>>> >>>>This list was compiled over the last months, starting from the >>>>RU_metadata.owl, the BirnLex metadata requirements and the metadata >>>>annotations provided by the NCIT (all of which can be found on the >>>>OBI-Wiki at >>>>https://www.cbil.upenn.edu/fugowiki/index.php/RepresentationalUnitMetadataTable). >>>> >>>>This minimal subset of metadata properties was agreed upon, and had its >>>>definitions finalized by the OBI metadata subgroup during the last two >>>>weeks. >>>>The added cardinalities are still under discussion, as is the >>>>implementation and in some cases the domain of the metadata properties. >>>> >> >> >>
Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 18:37:22 UTC