Dear Barry, (01)
I do not know why you would want to limit the criterion to a shared
syntax. Why not ask for a shared semantic? Up to recently (Ian
Horrock's et al mapping OBO to OWL), OBO did not even have a formal
semantics. And I doubt that now this problem is solved by the OBO-OWL
mapping, since most people using OBO will not care about the semantics
given by the OWL mapping. Since the Dagstuhl discussions on why OWL is
not sufficient for expressing the problems are still in my head, so I
do not want to restart the discussion, I just wanted to know if the
long term goal also is to agree on a share semantic? (02)
Extending to FOL-based ontologies is certainly good for tackling the
expressivity bottleneck. I guess reasoning will not be one of the
major usecases for these expressive ontologies? (03)
When you say the ontology is available in OBO and OWL, I assume they
both adhere to OWL semantic? (04)
Best,
Holger (05)
Am 21.03.2008 um 15:14 schrieb Barry Smith: (06)
>
> Patrich Hayes writes:
>
> We simply do not
>> yet know what 'well structured' can possibly
>> mean, as a general category or classification
>> applying uniformly to all ontologies. The world
>> has not yet even settled on a single class of
>> basic logics to write ontologies in, and notions
>> of 'well-structured' must be hostage to the
>> underlying language, since the same structure may
>> easily be an efficient and robust technique in
>> one language and a syntax error or worse in
>> another. Most of the criteria given for approval
>> in the OBO framework are controversial, for
>> example. (BTW, the reason I keep citing OBO is
>> that it is the only extant example to cite, not
>> that I wish it ill.)
>
> I hope that one OBO Foundry criterion, at least, is non-controversial
> to Patrick, this is the criterion to the effect that the ontologies
> use a common syntax. Currently this may be either OBO or OWL, but we
> would be happy to extend it to FOL / CL, and I personally would
> welcome the creation of FOL-based bio-ontologies.
>
> BFO, which is a related ontology project, exists in a FOL version, as
> well as in OWL and OBO versions.
> http://www.ifomis.uni-saarland.de/bfo/
>
> For the other criteria see:
> http://www.obofoundry.org/crit.shtml
> This list is designed to evolve in light of lessons learned. The
> principles seem non-controversial at least to many biologists (hence
> the success in this community of the OBO Foundry experiment). But
> they are to be conceived as forming an experiment, designed to test
> potential answers to questions like: "what can 'well structured'
> possibly mean, as a general category or classification applying
> uniformly to all ontologies [or more precisely: to ontologies
> designed to serve the needs of life scientists]'.
>
> If Patrick finds some of them controversial, then the obvious
> suggestion would be for him to create an alternative experiment,
> using different criteria, and see what happens. If the selected
> criteria yielded better results, OBO Foundry would adopt them
> immediately.
>
> Patrick himself seems, however, to prefer the single principle of:
> anything goes.
>
> Which is also, of course, perfectly acceptable.
> BS
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (08)
|