W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: representing non-state relationships in OWL

From: <matthew.west@shell.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:26:00 -0000
Message-ID: <808637A57BC3454FA660801A3995FA8F045DC252@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com>
To: <adriandwalker@gmail.com>, <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, <phayes@ihmc.us>
Dear Adrian,
 
Barry Smith et al take a 3D approach to continuants, and so they need to time index their relations to say when they apply. We take a 4D approach, and so we identify the state of an individual (continuants in a 3D analysis cannot have states - temporal parts) and then make a timeless relationship to that.
 
You have to make a choice between 3D and 4D. What you do after that follows from your ontological commitments.
 
Regards
 
Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Walker [mailto:adriandwalker@gmail.com]
Sent: 31 December 2006 02:52
To: Hans Teijgeler
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org; West, Matthew R SIPC-DFC/D21; Pat Hayes
Subject: Re: representing non-state relationships in OWL


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.
        http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46

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

Adrian Walker
Reengineering




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!.  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/mobile_o2/*http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry> Enter now. 


--
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 Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:07:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT