W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Patterns for representing mass-produced objects? (FRBR revisited)

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:33:05 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0810030533w3b1e5b00s43364793d1e7d8fd@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org, "Alistair Miles" <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>

2008/9/30 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>


> Hence my question here. How do ontologists lately tend to model things like an aircraft part, or other mass-produced item, when we have a situation in which (a) the design of these copied itself needs modeling (b) their instances may be flawed, damaged or lack adherance in various ways towards their stereotypical ideal.

 For what it's worth I've got a still unfulfilled use case for such a
model - and also had something along the lines of FRBR in mind:


Don't think I got any on-list feedback on that, though there was an
interesting ref. in a comment from Richard Urban on the FRBR blog:

This seems like the perfect job for the CIDOC Conceptual Reference
Model, which includes part-whole relations as well as a way to
differentiate conceptual plans from as-built modifications. (and
already includes properties for broken things).

Peter Simons and Charles Dement also discuss different senses of
part-of that are present in a manufacturing process. i.e. the
engineering blank is different kind of part than the final
manufactured component of the guitar.
See Simons, P. and Dement C. (1996). Aspects of the Mereology of
Artifacts in Roberto Poli and Peter Simons (Ed.) Formal Ontology.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.


Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 12:33:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:17 UTC