Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[bioontology-support] OBOE

Natasha F. Noy noy at stanford.edu
Mon Aug 23 14:37:08 PDT 2010


Dear Ben,

> I'm curious about the distinction between views and extensions/ 
> imports. Our structure is such that:
> - 'oboe' imports 'oboe-core', extending the core ontology with  
> additional classes.
> - 'oboe-sbc' imports 'oboe' (as well as 'oboe-units' and 'oboe- 
> context') and defines subclasses of various classes defined in  
> 'oboe'/'oboe-context'/'oboe-units'.
>
> What is the recommended approach for registering these ontologies?  
> Some options, as far as I can tell, might be:
> 1. Register each individual owl file as a distinct ontology
> 2. Register a top-level ontology (oboe-core) and then create views  
> off of it (oboe, oboe-sbc**)
> 	**how is the "grandchild" view treated (ie, oboe-core -> oboe ->  
> oboe-sbc)?
> 3. Register a somewhat-top-level ontology (oboe) and create views  
> off of it (oboe-sbc)

It's a very good question. I would suggest that it would make more  
sense to register these as separate ontologies rather than the views  
on a core ontology -- although any of the two approaches is valid. We  
*can* handle grandchildren views, at least in our infrastructure, but  
the UI may be less kind to  them at the moment.

Your question brings an interesting issue though and maybe we should  
consider "groups" of ontologies to facilitate these types of scenarios  
in the future. Thank you for the idea!

Natasha




More information about the bioontology-support mailing list