|
Difference between
version 28
and
version 27:
| Line 33 was replaced by line 33 |
| - There is some question as to what exactly is required in terms of ontologies for the topical ontology annotations and the signature ontology annotations. There may be one overall ontology, in which both style of annotations draw terms from, or it may be convenient to have separate ontologies for each style. For example, the ontology for topical annotations may be inherently more general, and would represent one or more classification axes that allowed users to label the actors and data with relevant terms. For example, an actor that calculates the Shannon-Weiner index might be labeled as a "BiodiversityIndex" and a model that generates spatially explicit maps of species distributions might be labeled a "SpatialSpeciesDistributionModel" (not that that would be an explicit term, but that would be the meaning of the annotation). The signature ontology would specifically be used to label the semantic types of data that are contained within a data set or that flow between two or more actors. Thus, this ontology would contain terms that are concretely tied to real-world measurements as represented by data. For example, the ontological annotation for a particular column in a biodiversity data set might be "PsychotriaLimonensisArealDensity" (it would also have a structural type describing units, etc). A particular "BiodiversityIndex" actor might take as input data with the type "SpeciesArealDensity", and the ontology would allow us to deduce that the Psychotria limonensis data is semantically compatible with the actor's input requirement. |
| + There is some question as to what types of ontologies are required for topical annotations and signature annotations. There may be one overall ontology, in which both styles of annotation draw terms from, or it may be convenient to have separate ontologies for each style. The ontology for topical annotations may be inherently more general, representing one or more simple classification axes that allow users to label actors and data with relevant terms. To illustrate, an actor that calculates the Shannon-Weiner index might be labeled as a "BiodiversityIndex" and a model that generates spatially explicit maps of species distributions might be labeled as a "SpatialSpeciesDistributionModel."[#1] The signature ontology would specifically be used to label the semantic types of data that are contained within a data set or that flow between two or more actors. Thus, this ontology would contain terms that are concretely tied to real-world measurements as represented by data. For example, the annotation for a particular column in a biodiversity data set might be "PsychotriaLimonensisArealDensity" (it would also have a structural type describing units, etc). A particular "BiodiversityIndex" actor might take input data with the type "SpeciesArealDensity", and the ontology would allow us to deduce that the Psychotria limonensis data is semantically compatible with the actor's input requirement. |
| At line 80 added 4 lines. |
| + |
| + [#1] The term "SpatialSpeciesDistributionModel" is highly specialized. In practice, such terms are more likely than not described, or "built from" existing terms and ontology structures. For example, the notion of a "Model" may be explicitly captured by an ontology, where a "Model" is a complex structure having sub-parts. In this example, the term "SpatialSpeciesDistributionModel" may be explicitly defined within the ontology, or even implicitly defined by the annotation itself, as being a "Model" that "computes" the "SpatialDistribution" of a set of "Species". |
| + |
| + |
Back to Semantics In Kepler,
or to the Page History.
|
