On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:54 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (01)
> On 3/10/2015 1:31 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
>> There are also named individuals that can appear in the T-Box - SH_O_IN(D).
>
> There are some privileged individuals, such as the earth and the sun,
> which are essential for defining geographical coordinates, times, days,
> nights, etc. For any country X, it's impossible to specify the laws
> of X without referring to X and some named entities in X. And for any
> business Y, the business types and rules used for Y will normally make
> many references to Y and some named entities in Y.
>
>> There can also be anonymous individuals as annotation values. (This
>> triggered a horrible bug in the OWLAPI when used with punning.)
>
> Yes. And my major complaint about OWL is that it should be called
> *An* Ontology Language, not *The* Ontology Language. (02)
AFAIK, nobody has claimed that it is The Ontology Language. It is "the"
W3C-recommended WEB Ontology Language, with an emphasis on the "Web" part. (03)
Pat (04)
> Some things we
> know about the currently popular languages: (a) they have changed
> considerably over the past 10 years, (b) they will change even more
> over the next 10 years, and (c) there are and will be many more
> languages that will have to interoperate with them.
>
> For some perspective on the history of interoperable systems and
> proposed standards for them, see http://www.jfsowa.com/ikl
>
> General principle: Flexible guidelines for ontology design are
> useful. But rigid standards will be obsolete as soon as they're
> written. I agree with the comments below by Pat Hayes.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 2:31 PM
> To: Anthony Mallia
> Cc: David Booth; public-semweb-lifesci@xxxxxx; HL7 ITS
> Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback
>
> Comments in-line:
>
> On Mar 8, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Anthony Mallia <amallia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> David,
>
>> I believe that this is an important aspect to distinguish between the
> type or TBox and the instance or ABox. A simple justification is that
> they come from different authorities (and end points) - HL7 or an EHR
> system.
>
> If there is any other reason to distinguish them, please list as many of
> them as you can. If this is the only reason, I would strongly suggest
> that it is not a sufficient reason for introducing this rigid
> distinction into the foundation. It would be better to provide a
> mechanism to allow the kind of originating authority to be specified
> explicitly. The question to ask is, what utility in actual processing
> will arise from having this distinction rigidly enforced? The problems
> it (artificially) introduces is that it makes most OWL2 ontologies
> unclassifiable, since many of them contain both class and instance data:
> in fact, OWL2 punning makes this very distinction rather hard to detect,
> since a class in OWL 2 may itself be an instance; and it forces users to
> make a needless classification decision which may give rise to errors
> and difficulties in processing.
>
>> However I would strongly recommend that we DO NOT REDEFINE Ontology
> from its definition in the W3C specs - this will cause major confusion.
>
>> Here is the extract from OWL2:
>> "OWL 2 ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data
> values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be
> used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies
> themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF documents."
>
> That defines an OWL2 ontology. If you are planning to use other
> representation languages, I would suggest adopting a wider definition of
> the bare concept of 'ontology'. By the way, this topic - how to define
> 'ontology' - was discussed in depth for a year in the Ontolog forum. I
> recommend reading
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique
> and the surrounding discussions before coming to a decision.
>
>> So I am recommending two subtypes of Ontology :
>> INSTANCE ONTOLOGY (INSTANCE for short) contains Individuals, their
> Property assertions and their data values but may refer to contents of
> MODEL(s)
>
> I think you mean it contains individual *names*, right?
>
> When you say 'may refer to', what distinction are you making between
> 'refer to' and 'contain'? Do you mean it will not contain the
> *definitions* of the classes, etc.? But there is no concept of
> 'definition' in the RDF/OWL world.
>
>> MODEL ONTOLOGY (MODEL for short) contains Classes, ObjectProperties,
> DataProperties and Datatypes
>
> And what will you do with something which contains large amounts of
> instance data, described using a mixture of vocabulary from a number of
> other ontologies and a small number of class and property definitions
> local to it? Because this is, if anything, the normal situation in
> Web-based ontology work.
>
>> INSTANCE and MODEL are disjoint
>
> Which, if enforced, is going to create errors and blocks to processing
> for no functional reason. Why do this? It is a bad design decision to
> introduce distinctions that have no utility other than to be enforced
> and generate error messages. If this is a genuine type distinction, then
> you should be able to say what reasons there are for a processor to know
> what type an ontology is. How will an INSTANCE be processed differently
> from a MODEL?
>
>> but there can be Ontologies (neither of these subtypes) which combine
> them through merge or import and would be used for reasoning.
>> It should not be necessary to separate these two by MIME type - they
> will be handled quite differently e.g. import statements will know
> exactly what they are trying to do.
>
> importing is completely transparent to this distinction. Both of them
> (and any hybrids) will be imported in the same way using the same
> mechanisms. This is part of the RDF/OWL design.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2015/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015
> Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/
>
> (05)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2015/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015
Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ (07)
|