Hi John,
Thanks, I had read that before but had forgot that this was
specifically mentioned in that document. I'm still trying to understand
the full implications. In particular, I think that OWL 1.1 may remove
the restriction that motivated this pattern, but that there may be
problems - Just wrote this note to the OWL list, we'll see what folks
say:
http://lists.mindswap.org/pipermail/owl/2006-May/000310.html
The OWL 1.1 web site is http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/
-Alan
On May 22, 2006, at 11:37 AM, John Barkley wrote:
alan,
Perhaps we could review these at our next conference call. For
instance the ontologies choose to create an instance of each leaf
class for populating instances corresponding to database entries with
these values. What do people think of this?
This is an often used technique to keep ontologies/knowledge bases OWL
DL.
There is a very nice article on this subject at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-classes-as-values
jb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "Alan Rector" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Matthias Samwald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 6:46 PM
Subject: [BIONT] Senselab project ontologies.
Kei Chung has updated the Senselab BioRDF here.
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/SenseLab
In it he points to the NeuroWeb web site
http://128.36.123.50/NeuroWeb/
Which contains links to OWL ontologies for cocodat and neurondb (plus
a sampling of data).
Perhaps we could review these at our next conference call. For
instance the ontologies choose to create an instance of each leaf
class for populating instances corresponding to database entries with
these values. What do people think of this?
I don't think we have a TC planned for this coming tuesday, but if
there is sufficient interest we can set one up. Otherwise we can talk
about it the following week.
-Alan
