User:JeremyZucker - Revision history

JeremyZucker: /* Jeremy Zucker */

2008-06-18T02:54:58Z

Jeremy Zucker

←Older revision		Revision as of 02:54, 18 June 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	===Jeremy Zucker===		===Jeremy Zucker===
-	~~I've thought about a few resources for you to check out.~~
-	~~First, the [http://www.co-ode.org/resources/tutorials/ProtegeOWLTutorial.pdf Manchester Pizza tutorial]~~
-	just rocks when it comes to understanding how to put together an OWL ontology. In particular, it clarifies some of the subtle distinctions between object-oriented modeling, relational models, and description logics, particularly the open-world assumption.
-
-	Barry Smith's [http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46 Relationship ontology] is important for thinking about what kinds of relationships to reuse. Note that the [http://obo.sourceforge.net OBO] ontologies he refers to use DAG-Edit style ontologies, not OWL-style ontologies. DAG-Edit has been typically used more for things like generating large hierarchical classification schemes than it has been used for representing database schemas in a generalizable way. The relationship ontology helps bridge that gap, should you choose to go that route.
-
-	~~However, if you do consider DAG-Edit, as a warning, you should read~~
-	~~[http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n9/full/nbt0905-1095.html this critique of MGED and other Bio-ontologies].~~

JeremyZucker: /* Jeremy Zucker */

2005-09-30T05:33:13Z

Jeremy Zucker

←Older revision		Revision as of 05:33, 30 September 2005
Line 4:		Line 4:
	just rocks when it comes to understanding how to put together an OWL ontology. In particular, it clarifies some of the subtle distinctions between object-oriented modeling, relational models, and description logics, particularly the open-world assumption.		just rocks when it comes to understanding how to put together an OWL ontology. In particular, it clarifies some of the subtle distinctions between object-oriented modeling, relational models, and description logics, particularly the open-world assumption.

-	Barry Smith's [http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46 Relationship ontology] is important for thinking about what kinds of relationships to reuse. Note that the [http://obo.sourceforge.net OBO] ontologies he refers to use DAG-Edit style ontologies, not OWL-style ontologies. DAG-Edit has been typically used more for things like generating large hierarchical classification schemes than it has been used for representing database schemas in a generalizable way. The relationship ontology helps bridge that ~~goal~~, should you choose to go that route.	+	Barry Smith's [http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46 Relationship ontology] is important for thinking about what kinds of relationships to reuse. Note that the [http://obo.sourceforge.net OBO] ontologies he refers to use DAG-Edit style ontologies, not OWL-style ontologies. DAG-Edit has been typically used more for things like generating large hierarchical classification schemes than it has been used for representing database schemas in a generalizable way. The relationship ontology helps bridge that gap, should you choose to go that route.

	However, if you do consider DAG-Edit, as a warning, you should read		However, if you do consider DAG-Edit, as a warning, you should read
	[http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n9/full/nbt0905-1095.html this critique of MGED and other Bio-ontologies].		[http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n9/full/nbt0905-1095.html this critique of MGED and other Bio-ontologies].

JeremyZucker at 05:31, 30 September 2005

2005-09-30T05:31:24Z

New page

===Jeremy Zucker===
I've thought about a few resources for you to check out.
First, the [http://www.co-ode.org/resources/tutorials/ProtegeOWLTutorial.pdf Manchester Pizza tutorial]
just rocks when it comes to understanding how to put together an OWL ontology. In particular, it clarifies some of the subtle distinctions between object-oriented modeling, relational models, and description logics, particularly the open-world assumption.

Barry Smith's [http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46 Relationship ontology] is important for thinking about what kinds of relationships to reuse. Note that the [http://obo.sourceforge.net OBO] ontologies he refers to use DAG-Edit style ontologies, not OWL-style ontologies. DAG-Edit has been typically used more for things like generating large hierarchical classification schemes than it has been used for representing database schemas in a generalizable way. The relationship ontology helps bridge that goal, should you choose to go that route.

However, if you do consider DAG-Edit, as a warning, you should read
[http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n9/full/nbt0905-1095.html this critique of MGED and other Bio-ontologies].