Fischer, D.H.: Converting a thesaurus to OWL : Notes on the paper "The National Cancer Institute's Thesaurus and Ontology" (2004)
0.01
0.014522595 = product of:
0.021783892 = sum of:
0.015766038 = weight(_text_:im in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015766038 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.10931155 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
0.0060178554 = product of:
0.018053565 = sum of:
0.018053565 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018053565 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.11697317 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
