W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2005

[OEP] Re: discussion on part note

From: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:00:49 +0100
Message-Id: <p0611040fbe3b85f32b2e@[]>
To: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>, dlm@ksl.stanford.edu, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, michael.f.uschold@boeing.com, noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU, ekendall@sandsoft.com, loa@loa-cnr.it

Hi Alan,

At 7:43 +0000 18-02-2005, Alan Rector wrote:
>I would strongly object a note for this purpose that took on the 
>full DOLCE (or
>BFO, or other) axiomization or indeed that got into the many of the 
>issues that
>Lambrix (and elsewhere Artale et al) discuss, although I would be 
>pleased to see
>the references, flavours of part-whole, and perhaps other 'further reading'
>extended.  This is not because I don't think these issues are important, but
>because a) they are important but can only be understood after 
>people understand
>the basics; b) they cover more than most people need; and c) 
>although there are
>lot of ideas, there is less consensus.   (I omitted Lambrix' thesis and papers
>the references, apologies.)

consensus can be missing on details, but I disagree on ignoring the 
relevant literature on a topic so widely investigated

>Our recent interaction with users is that "simpler is better".  Most 
>need a very
>simple version most of the time.  Points where users have made errors in our
>1)    Mixing part-whole and kiind-of
>2)    Not understanding why you need both "all As is-part-of some B" 
>and "all Bs
>has_part some A" (apologies for the misprint.  I thought I had 
>corrected that on
>the web version.)  OWL, and DL syntax generally, obscures the 
>distinction so it
>to be made doubly clear.
>3)    Not being able to get a part-whole explosion as they would expect
>4)    Making transitive relations functional in an attempt to create a tree
>5)    Confusing containment, and sometimes other relations, and whole-part
>6)    Having no idea how to get the "fault of the part is a fault of 
>the whole"
>those situations when they need it.
>Given the unfortunate problems of tableaux reasoners with KBs that 
>contain both
>is_part_of and has_part, I think this also needs a "health warning".  (We have
>20 class ontologies that stop both Racer and FaCT much to users' surprise.)
>If we can get these six points across, we will give simple timely 
>advice. If we
>wait until we  settle arguments such as that  between Pat and Aldo over
>and perdurants our advice will be neither simple nor timely.

In fact, I was only reacting to Pat. Notice that my point is that 
such arguments *cannot be settled at all*: we must be tolerant to all 
possible uses, then there is nothing to wait for.

But maybe it's a good idea to use a set of axioms that are good 
enough (DOLCE, Lambrix, Artale, Vieu, Goodman, or anything else), and 
encoding them in OWL, eventually using other patterns, e.g. for n-ary 
relations. You may discover that within OWL some differences 

I like your six points very much, but staying on the FAQ side only 
does not give a complete picture: why not giving out answers to FAQs, 
which are grounded on something?

>Let's keep it simple.  Even simple things are hard enough for new users.

Agreed wholeheartedly.


Aldo Gangemi
Research Scientist
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
Tel: +390644161535
Fax: +390644161513

!!! please don't use the old gangemi@ip.rm.cnr.it
address, because it is under spam attack
Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 12:01:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:42 UTC