Re: questions on SKOS

Sorry for the duplicate post, but there a few typos I missed that can  
make the message below a bit unclear.

Cheers,
Bill

On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Daniel Rubin wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> An interesting thread related to SKOS on another list. Bill Bug  
> posted some questions to which people on this list might want to  
> respond.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> I may be taking too simple a view of this issue, but my sense is  
> the only part of SKOS that can be useful without creating an overly  
> complex graph of entailments that will require a lot of custom  
> logic are the annotation properties they put in the original SKOS  
> OWL file.
>
> Though we do eventually want to be able to trace provenance on a  
> declared synonymies, my sense is what we need NOW are shared  
> annotation properties used across all OBO ontologies for things  
> like "synonym", "abbreviation", "scope note", "history note",  
> "definition", "OBO definition" - just to avoid the babel of home- 
> grown annotation properties that will each necessitate creating and  
> maintaining custom logic (or annotation property maps) in order to  
> process.  This is the simple objective I'd hoped SKOS would adopt  
> first, before leaping to the more complex objective of providing a  
> shared framework to support expressing logical entailments related  
> to "acts of speech".
>
> Am I'm being too facile in thinking such a shared set of lexically- 
> oriented annotation properties - opaque to the DIG reasoners -  
> would be of use to OBI and the broader community.  Should we not  
> expect this to come from SKOS, or should we all simply use (or  
> extend) the annotation properties that come with OBOinOWL?
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
> On Nov 19, 2007, at 6:07 PM, Chris Mungall wrote:
>
>
>> I think the broader/narrower/exact type relations are potentially
>> useful for encoding the relation between a universal and a linguistic
>> unit. e.g. synonyms in obo format. I'm not sure to what extent this
>> is overloading SKOS.
>>
>> On Nov 19, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>>> I guess my basic question is, what does the broader / narrower
>>> relationships mean? "Broader concepts are typically rendered as
>>> parents in a concept hierarchy" Do you have any better way to think
>>> about them than "the relationship to use instead of  using  
>>> superclass
>>> properly, if you are in a rush"?
>>>
>>> -Alan
>
>

William Bug, M.S., M.Phil.                                         		 
email: wbug@ncmir.ucsd.edu
Ontological Engineer (Programmer Analyst III)		work: (610) 457-0443
Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN)
and
National Center for Microscopy & Imaging Research (NCMIR)
Dept. of Neuroscience, School of Medicine
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093

Please note my email has recently changed