ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] ReFocusing: Unique IDs vs Formal languag

To: Ontology Summit 2008 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Natasha Noy <noy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:56:58 -0700
Message-id: <0EE847C2-1DE8-4478-906D-25A21F7F8EA9@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fabian,    (01)

Thank you very much for the nice summary.    (02)

> == Summary: Gatekeeping/ Minimal Requirements ==
>
> 1. Openness    (see below)
> 2. /The ontology is expressed in a formal language with a well-defined
> syntax./
> 3. /The authors of the ontology provide the required metadata. /
> 4. /The ontology has a clearly specified and clearly delineated scope.
> /5. /Successive versions of  an ontology are clearly identified.
> /6. /The ontology has passed certain dynamic tests.    /
> 7. /The ontology has unique IDs for its terms.    /
> 8. /The ontology is adequately labeled.    /
> 9. /The ontology has a plurality of users.
> /    (03)

I have a question about #7, in particular vis-a-vis #2. Are there  
formal languages that allow terms in an ontology not to have unique  
IDs? Or is this talking about uniqueness *across* ontologies in OOR.    (04)

If it is the requirement of uniqueness across all ontologies, then I  
strongly disagree -- and I suspect many will to, for the same reason  
that the OBO Foundry orthogonality principle doesn't apply here.    (05)

If it is within a single ontology, then it is already implied by #2,  
and is not needed.    (06)

Natasha    (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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>