On May 25, 2007, at 8:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[2] For instance, definitions in the PATO OWL file (quality.owl) are
not visible in Protege. The OWL version of PATO has an
AnnotationProperty called "oboInOwl:hasDefintion" that has the value
"@_:A4843".
note there is a protege3 plugin that has oboinowl aware displays
..but of course this doesn't help if you're using p4, swoop, lsw,
triple20 on any other sw tool
I and some other people have already nagged Chris about the
representation of defintions and synonyms in the OWL versions of
OBO ontologies.
nagging me directly won't do much, it's a collaborative effort. the
best place to comment is probably here:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
my own preferred way of doing this is to use simple class-label
annotprops and reify them to attach provenance info. this would
probably be even less popular (even *less* support in owl tools), but
it makes sense to me. See also the reif/NG discussion on this list -
NGs would seem clunky here
This is partly related to a larger problem, namely the
inhomogeneous representation of labels, descriptions and
definitions among biomedical Semantic Web ontologies.
++ to that
I have started a Wiki page on this topic:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/Labels_and_Definitions
The page is intended to contain the following (please add to it /
discuss!):
* Examples from biomedical ontologies of non-standard constructs to
represent Labels, names, descriptions and definitions of entities.
* An analysis of the motivations behind the creation of these
constructs
*A description of the problems that arise through a lack of
harmonization (e.g. for queries and user interfaces)
* A review of the basic constructs in the RDF, RDFS and OWL
vocabularies and their intended usage for labels, descriptions and
definitions
* An informal recommendation for the representation of labels,
descriptions and definitions and suggestions for the harmonization
of biomedical ontologies in this regard.
I have started comparing the constructs from a few ontologies, but
there are many additional ontologies that have created their own
style for the representation of this information. We should try to
find the smallest common denominator between all these approaches,
because this really is a large hindrance to practical
interoperability between our ontologies.
seems worthwhile. but if you want it to take off why restrict it to
the HCLS?
cheers,
Matthias Samwald
----------
Yale Center for Medical Informatics, New Haven /
Section on Medical Expert and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vienna /
http://neuroscientific.net
.
--
GMX FreeMail: 1 GB Postfach, 5 E-Mail-Adressen, 10 Free SMS.
Alle Infos und kostenlose Anmeldung: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freemail
