Hello, (01)
I have several questions to the speakers if I may: (02)
1. On the last slide you mentioned that subject maps enable ontological
reasoning even in the absence of data being formally “ontologized.” Could
you
please explain more what you mean by that? I am particurarly interested how
the proxies are semantically interpreted - in terms of description logic
perhaps. Do they even have such semantic when they don't have a syntax and
structure? If not, how is the reasoning possible then? (03)
2. What would happen if one of the merged ontologies would be contradictory?
Would that contradiction automatically transfer to the other ontologies
during reasoning? I mean really a contradiction in one ontology not
contradicting terms/concepts between two ontologies. (04)
3. How do the subject maps relate to so-called Context OWL (C-OWL) (ISWC 2003,
LCNS 2870, pp. 164-179, 2003). (05)
Thank you, (06)
Jakub Kotowski (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|