W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2013

Re: How can I express containment/composition?

From: Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:46:30 +0000
Message-ID: <51264156.6040109@ontotext.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org

Thanks, Bernard, that was (supposed to be) exactly my point about 'some 
types of containment', and I was trying to say later that this might 
apply to some of the parentFeature sub-properties but not others.

I didn't make myself very clear though; glad you followed up.

Barry



On 21/02/13 15:31, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> Hi all
>
> (with my Geonames ontology editor helmet on)
>
> 2013/2/21 Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com 
> <mailto:barry.norton@ontotext.com>>
>
>
>     I agree that one should expect (some) geographical containment(s)
>     to represent general partonomy; I guess geonames doesn't because
>     there is no canonical property for partonomy.
>
>
> Well, geography is a tricky domain ... gn:parentFeature is the most 
> generic hierarchical property between gn:Feature, but it's not a 
> partonomy stricto sensu, because it covers both physical and 
> administrative features. And its transitivity entails for example that 
> Guadeloupe is both child of Europe through its administrative parent 
> which is France, and child of Northern America by its geographical 
> location.
> In a strict partonomy, seems to me that having two ancestors which are 
> physically disjoint should be forbidden.
>
> gn:parentFeature   rdfs:subPropertyOf   dcterms:hasPart
> would make sense since the latter has also a quite loose definition. I 
> put it on the to-consider list for the next publication.
> "A related resource that is included either physically or logically in 
> the described resource."
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/part.owl#partOf 
> has probably a stronger semantics.
>
> The double parenthood above would certainly break the results of 
> population using SPARQL queries such as proposed by Matteo if you 
> count by continent.
> People from Guadeloupe will be counted both as European and American ...
>
>     E.g., Geonames has:
>
>       :parentFeature     a owl:ObjectProperty,
>                      owl:TransitiveProperty;
>               rdfs:comment "A feature parent of the current one, in either administrative or physical subdivision."@en;
>               rdfs:domain :Feature;
>               rdfs:label "parent feature"@en;
>               rdfs:range :Feature .
>
>       :parentADM1     a owl:ObjectProperty;
>               rdfs:domain :Feature;
>               rdfs:label "level 1 administrative parent"@en;
>               rdfs:range  [
>                   a owl:Restriction;
>                   owl:hasValue <#A.ADM1>;
>                   owl:onProperty :featureCode ];
>               rdfs:subPropertyOf :parentFeature .
>
>     But no
>
>     :parentFeature rdfs:subPropertyOfhttp://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/part.owl#partOf.
>
>
>     Or
>
>     :parentFeature rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:hasPart.
>
>
>     To be honest though, I don't like your example as being a citizen
>     of a country /doesn't/ imply a partonomy relationship to me
>     (neither might some kinds of geographic containment - I'm thinking
>     Lesotho-South Africa).
>
>     Barry
>
>
>
>     On 21/02/13 14:10, Frans Knibbe | Geodan wrote:
>>     Barry and Matteo, thank you for pointing me to the GeoNames
>>     Ontology. Geographical containment can also be found in GeoSPARQL
>>     (http://schemas.opengis.net/geosparql/1.0/geosparql_vocab_all.rdf):
>>     sfContains.
>>
>>     I had the feeling that what I primarily needed was the logical
>>     concept of containment/composition, because that would allow
>>     reasoning on the part of the data consumer. But I guess it would
>>     be best to specify both logical AND geographical containment. As
>>     far as I can tell, the geographical containment in GeoSPARQL and
>>     GeoNames does not imply logical containment. But perhaps I am
>>     overestimating the power of dcterms:hasPart?
>>
>>     I was thinking about an example. Let's say the following is known:
>>
>>     1) A country consists of provinces
>>     2) For each country, the complete set of provinces is available
>>     3) For each province the number of inhabitants is available
>>
>>     Could a machine answer the question "Which country has the
>>     highest number of inhabitants?" without help from a human?
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     Frans
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 21-2-2013 14:10, Matteo Casu wrote:
>>>     You could also check the GeoNames ontology, which considers
>>>     administrative subdivisions:
>>>     http://www.geonames.org/ontology/documentation.html
>>>     E.G.: in the USA, level 1 administrative subdivisions are
>>>     States. In Italy, they are Regions.
>>>
>>>     It is a minor change of perspective with respect to yours.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Il giorno 21/feb/2013, alle ore 14:01, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
>>>     <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> ha
>>>     scritto:
>>>
>>>>     Thank you Martynas, that seems to be just what I was looking for!
>>>>
>>>>     Frans
>>>>
>>>>     On 21-2-2013 13:54, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>>>>>     Hey Frans,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Dublin Core Terms has some general properties for this:
>>>>>     dct:hasPart
>>>>>     http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart
>>>>>     dct:isPartOf
>>>>>     http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isPartOf
>>>>>
>>>>>     Martynas
>>>>>     graphity.org <http://graphity.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
>>>>>     <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>     Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I would like to express a composition relationship. Something
>>>>>>     like:
>>>>>>     A Country consist of Provinces
>>>>>>     A Province consists of Municipalities
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I thought this should be straightforward because this is a
>>>>>>     common and
>>>>>>     logical kind of relationship, but I could not find a
>>>>>>     vocabulary which allows
>>>>>>     be to make this kind of statement. Perhaps I am bad at
>>>>>>     searching, or maybe I
>>>>>>     did not use the right words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I did find this document:
>>>>>>     http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/
>>>>>>     ("Simple
>>>>>>     part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies"). It explains that
>>>>>>     OWL has no direct
>>>>>>     support for this kind of relationship and it goes on to give
>>>>>>     examples on how
>>>>>>     one can create ontologies that do support the relationship in
>>>>>>     one way or the
>>>>>>     other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Is there a ready to use ontology/vocabulary out there that
>>>>>>     can help me
>>>>>>     express containment/composition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>     Frans 
>
>
> -- 
> *Bernard Vatant
> *
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://blog.hubjects.com/>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca*****
> 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/>
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Meet us at Documation <http://www.documation.fr/> in Paris, March 20-21
>
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 15:46:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:46 UTC