On May 6, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Alan> I've seen the disadvantages of multiple asserted
> inheritance when
> Alan> reviewing, e.g. the Cell ontology in OBO, where it was
> demonstrated
> Alan> (by the authors) that it was quite easy to find mistakes of
> the sort
> Alan> where all of the properties described in the definition of
> (multiple,
> Alan> and transitive) superclasses were not true of instances of
> the class
> Alan> in question. Regarding (c) what is perhaps being referred
> to is that
> Alan> if one practices "normalization" in the sense that Alan Rector
> Alan> proposes [1] then the component single inheritance
> ontologies from
> Alan> which more complex terms are constructed are more likely to
> be able to
> Alan> be reused by other projects. Certainly that's the intention of
> Alan> creating and using PATO. I've found the exercise of factoring
> Alan> definitions in this manner is often helpful and is
> conducive to
> Alan> helping the sorts of people I work with think carefully when
> Alan> constructing ontologies.
>
> I think that we need to be clear here; there is a fundamental
> distinction
> between normalisation as according to Alan Rector and to the idea
> of single
> inheritance is a correct reflection of reality. (01)
I think I've been clear on this. What I consider interesting is that
the same conclusions about the pragmatics of ontology construction
arise from two different approaches. For me, since I have respect for
the purveyors of these two approaches, this strengthens the case that
this is a good way to go about doing things. (02)
> While you are correct that allowing multiple inheritance increases
> the risk of
> some common errors, it also allows modelling that is not possible
> otherwise;
> in particular it can be used to avoid a combinatorial explosion of
> terms. (03)
Example? (04)
> My take; single inheritance can be easier and simpler sometimes,
> but not always; (05)
Curious about the not always. And not sure about the easier or
simpler either. "I would have written a shorter letter if I had
time", etc. But I think it leads to better quality results. (06)
> using a computationally amenable languages and normalisation allows
> you to get some of the advantages of both. (07)
+1 on that one. (08)
-Alan (09)
(the *other* Alan R ;-) (010)
> Phil
>
>
>
> ps, I started of writing this email referring to Alan Rector as
> "Alan". Then I
> had to correct it to "Alan R" to disambiguate from you. Then again.
> Eech. (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
|