Community-basedMapping Shangguan 0911

From Semantic Portal Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Presentation given at CSCI 6966 Advanced Semantic Web (Fall 2008) - Lesson 3

refresh


Questions

ID Question Name Answer
Community-basedMapping Shangguan 0911 Jesse Weaver The paper states that mapping relationships may vary from the more common ones (mentioned were equivalence, similarity, generalization, and specialization) to rarer ones (mentioned was has_part). However, figures 3 and 4 seem to reflect the related concepts without indicating the relationship. This seems like it could be confusing.

For example, if we map the concept TOAD as being SIMILAR to FROG, and we also map TOAD as HAVING_PART TEETH, doing a search for mappings from TOAD would bring up both FROG and TEETH. Because FROG and TEETH seem somewhat dissimilar, and without the mapping relationship included in the visual results, this may likely cause some confusion.

Would it be a good idea to include the mapping relation in such search/navigation visualizations, for clarity?		 Jesse Weaver
Community-basedMapping Shangguan 0911 Joshua Taylor Question 1 The authors mention that "when we create a mapping between the anatomy part of the NCI Thesaurus and the FMA, our goal is not to merge the two ontologies, but rather to help applications integrate the data that was annotated with terms from either ontology. We expect, however, that many applications will use only one or the other ontology. In the field of biomedical ontologies, researchers often think of ontology mapping not as a bridge between two ontologies, but rather as a glue that brings the two ontologies together to create a single whole, with clearly identifiable components. In this case, the ontologies that are mapped are intended to be used together, as a single unit." In the former case that reasoning is performed using under just one ontology, and the mappings serve as "bridges," what system is responsible for applying the mapping to information from a source ontology to yield information in the target ontology? Doesn't this system necessarily require knowledge of both ontologies? Joshua A. Taylor
CommunityBasedMappingSep11GregoryToddWilliams1 Section 2.1 indicates that user comments and discussions can be attached to mappings since the mappings are first class objects. This modeling seems restrictive, though, in cases where a researcher might want to discuss a mapping without asserting it. Would adding another form of comments that could reference a possible mapping be preferable to the situation where a mapping must be asserted in order to be discussed? Gregory Todd Williams
CommunityBasedMappingSep11JoshuaShinavier1 This may be beyond the scope of the tool, but it might be useful to allow users to create mappings not only at the concept level, but also at the ontology level. For instance, a user might want to simply assert that two ontologies are similar or that they cover a similar domain, rather than picking out individual concepts to map. Joshua Shinavier
Noy2008collecting question 1 by lebo The ability to provide a "One-stop shopping for ontology resources" remains overdue.
  1. Why do you think it has taken so long to establish this type of capability and why is it not the norm?
  2. It seems that after a lot of hard work by a team, ontologies are dead-on-arrival when they hit the web. What is preventing the Web philosophy from nurturing continued use and development of existing ontologies?
 Tim Lebo
Noy2008collecting question 2 by lebo
  1. Is reification used to represent the Mapping <C_s,C_t,R,M>?
  2. If so, have your experiences with reification been positive or negative? If not, how did reification not scratch the itch for your application?
 Tim Lebo
Noy2008collecting question 3 by lebo The authors state "One mapping can depend on another: 'If X is Y, then A is B'."
  1. How is this dependency mapping modeled?
 Tim Lebo
Noy2008collecting question 4 by lebo (diagram nit) Fig. 2 is great for illustrating the connectivity between ontologies. Making the nodes' size proportional to the size of the ontologies they represent might be more communicative, since the cardinality between two ontologies could usefully be considered with respect to the sizes of each ontology. Tim Lebo
Noy2008collecting question 5 by lebo Claims of "complete domain-independence" are often overstatements.
  1. To what extent is this technology domain-independent, and in what areas is it not?
 Tim Lebo
Q1 for Shangguan 0911 Concurrent editing issues are essential in collaborative ontology/mapping repository. E.g., user A and B are both editing the same mapping M between concept C1 in ontology O1 and concept C2 in ontology O2. How to guarantee that A and B will not corrupt each other's data? Zhenning Shangguan
Q2 for Shangguan 0911 Distributed query issues. Suppose that some of the concepts that are mapped to are defined in other ontologies that are not stored in BioPortal. Since the mappings are between concepts in different ontologies, the system described will have to divide a single query into multiple queries and then dispatch them to different ontologies? If our assumption is incorrect, it means that all ontologies are stored in BioPortal, which gives a further implication that if users were to create new mappings to some concept in some ontology that is not in BioPortal, they have to import that ontology first? Or if both are incorrect, does it mean that we have to import ontologies on-demand? Zhenning Shangguan
Question 1 Ankesh Khandelwal



Author Text
Noy2008collecting question 1 by lebo Tim Lebo The ability to provide a "One-stop shopping for ontology resources" remains overdue.
  1. Why do you think it has taken so long to establish this type of capability and why is it not the norm?
  2. It seems that after a lot of hard work by a team, ontologies are dead-on-arrival when they hit the web. What is preventing the Web philosophy from nurturing continued use and development of existing ontologies?
Noy2008collecting question 2 by lebo Tim Lebo
  1. Is reification used to represent the Mapping <C_s,C_t,R,M>?
  2. If so, have your experiences with reification been positive or negative? If not, how did reification not scratch the itch for your application?
Noy2008collecting question 3 by lebo Tim Lebo The authors state "One mapping can depend on another: 'If X is Y, then A is B'."
  1. How is this dependency mapping modeled?
Noy2008collecting question 4 by lebo Tim Lebo (diagram nit) Fig. 2 is great for illustrating the connectivity between ontologies. Making the nodes' size proportional to the size of the ontologies they represent might be more communicative, since the cardinality between two ontologies could usefully be considered with respect to the sizes of each ontology.
Noy2008collecting question 5 by lebo Tim Lebo Claims of "complete domain-independence" are often overstatements.
  1. To what extent is this technology domain-independent, and in what areas is it not?


Attendees

Tim Lebo

Retrieved from "http://tw.rpi.edu/portal/Community-basedMapping_Shangguan_0911"
Facts about Community-basedMapping Shangguan 0911RDF feed
APresentation  +, and Presentation attended by Tim Lebo  +
ConferenceISWC2008  +
Date11 September 2008  +
Given atCSCI 6966 Advanced Semantic Web (Fall 2008) - Lesson 3  +
Paper has authorNatasha Noy  +, Nicholas Griffith  +, and Mark Musen  +
SpeakerZhenning Shangguan  +
Title of paperCollecting Community-Based Mappings in an Ontology Repository  +
Urlhttp://bmir.stanford.edu/file_asset/index.php/1319/BMIR-2008-1310.pdf  +
Personal tools
Semantic Web Community
Tetherless World constellation
maintenance