W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: representing non-state relationships in OWL

From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:51:52 -0500
Message-ID: <1e89d6a40612301851pf9588a4g93b3c158313acb9e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org, "West, Matthew" <matthew.west@shell.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Hi Hans, Mathew, Pat and All --

Possibly the approach to continuants in [1] may be helpful,  and maybe also
the way it is implemented in the example [2].

HTH,  -- Adrian

[1]  ''Relations in biomedical ontologies'' by Barry Smith et al, Genome
Biology 2005.

[2]   www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/RelBioOntDefn3.agent

Adrian Walker

On 12/29/06, Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote:
>  Chris,
> What about defining an OWL Class "Activity", then a subClassOf that
> called "Meeting", and then the meeting you had in mind as an instance of it.
> Peter then isHost of that instance of Meeting.
> What still is missing is the temporal aspect. Our solution for that so far
> found a cold shoulder in the OWL scene. That solution is to define "temporal
> parts"[1]. The "temporal whole" of Peter is Peter between his birth and his
> (future) death. A temporal part is a part of that whole-life time span in
> which a certain fact is true. In this case there is a temporal part of Peter
> that "isHost" of that particular meeting.
> Regards,
> Hans
> [1]
> http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.html ,
> then select temporal_whole_part
> PS I quote from that:
> A <temporal_whole_part> is a <composition_of_individual> that indicates
> that one <possible_individual> is a temporal part of another
> <possible_individual>. The spatial extent of the temporal part is that of
> the temporal whole for the period of the existence of the temporal part.
> Relationships that apply to the whole <possible_individual> also apply to
> the temporal parts of the <possible_individual>, except when the
> relationships relate to the temporal nature of the whole. So if a
> <possible_individual> is connected so are all its temporal parts, but being
> a <whole_life_individual> is not inherited by its temporal parts.
> NOTE Since <temporal_whole_part> is transitive (inherited from its
> supertype) a hierarchy of temporal parts is possible, with a
> <whole_life_individual> at the top.
> EXAMPLE 1 The relation that indicates that an operating period of a pump
> is a temporal part of the pump can be represented by an instance of
> <temporal_whole_part>.
> EXAMPLE 2 The relationship that indicates that the time period known as
> March 1999 is part of the period known as 1st Quarter 1999 can be
> represented by an instance of <temporal_whole_part>.
>  ____________________
> OntoConsult
> Hans Teijgeler
> ISO 15926 specialist
> Netherlands
> +31-72-509 2005
> www.InfowebML.ws <http://www.infowebml.ws/>
> hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* C Haley [mailto:cands589@yahoo.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 11, 2006 20:23
> *To:* public-owl-dev@w3.org
> *Subject:*
>  Hi
> I've been reading through the various OWL documents and from what I've
> seen it appears that OWL is very good at representing state information,
> either of classes or individuals, but does not seem to allow for
> representing non-state relationships.
> For example I can use OWL to represent the concept 'man' as a class,
> represent Peter as an instance of that class, and I can define a property
> stateOfHealth, and the concept ill, and create a triple to say
> stateOfHealth(Peter, ill). This is representing a fact which defines the
> state of an instance.
> But suppose I want to represent the fact that Peter hosted a meeting in
> the office yesterday.
> Even if I created an artificial property 'toHost' and a blank node as an
> instance of the concept 'meeting', there is no way to attach the time and
> location to the property.
> Also I would want this property to derive from a URI representing the
> concept of 'hosting a meeting', but the OWL syntax seems to require
> properties to derive from other properties, not from a generic URI. So
> clearly this is not the correct way to represent an action.
> Can anyone tell me if there are any recommendations or documents
> describing the preferred solution to this problem? Alternatively is this an
> area where the existing OWL syntax/vocabulary is likely to be extended - is
> anyone actively working on this issue at present? Are there any draft
> recommendations in circulation?
> Many thanks for any comments anyone can give.
> Chris
> ------------------------------
> Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. *Enter now*<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/mobile_o2/*http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry>
> .
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.0.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/447 - Release Date: 13-Sep-06
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/607 - Release Date: 28-Dec-06
> 12:31
Received on Sunday, 31 December 2006 02:51:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC