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

Re: [OEP] Simple Part-Whole Relations - draft 1

From: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:05:56 +0000
Message-ID: <41F9AC14.D2E6288C@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Fabien Gandon <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>
CC: best-practice <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Fabien

Thanks for the comments.

.  I'll tidy things up.

Obviously the "All As part of some Bs" should be that it doesn't imply "All Bs
have part some A.".
That is a serious typo and needs fixing as soon as I am back where I can upload
a new copy.  I must
have been asleep.  The other things will get fixed in due course when I have a
good list of typos
and suggestions for rewording.

I didn't include geographical containment in this version - but should have put
it on the to do list.  Geogrpahical entities are individuals, and although this
poses no theoretical problem, to get a version to work with Racer or FaCT++
requires care.  I'd probably rather make that a separate addendum.  I certainly
didn't want to hold up the main note while I did it.

Regards

alan


Again, thanks for the comments.

Regards

Alan


Fabien Gandon wrote:

> Alan Rector a écrit :
> > The first draft of a note on simple part-whole relations for defining classes is
> > at
> >  http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector/swbp/simple-part-whole/simple-part-whole-relations-v0-2.html
>
> Hello Alan,
>
> Once again you have authored a very promising document.
> While reading it I wrote down a few comments, mainly details, see below.
>
> Best,
>
> Fabien
>
> [Section: Transitive relations - parts and direct parts]
> "(...) will draw the conclusions that the parts of C include both A and B."
> I understand what is meant here but (probably because I am not a native
> speaker) I find it ambiguous (when first reading it I understood it as
> "any part of C would include both A and B" which is wrong) and I would
> rather say something like
> "(...) will draw the conclusions that the set of the parts of C includes
> both A and B."
>
> " is_part_of_directly" I would prefer " is_direct_part_of" because it
> makes the reading of triples more natural: anA is_direct_part_of  aB
>
> [Section: Choosing whether to use is_part_of or has_part]
> "To say that 'All As are parts of some B' does not imply that 'All Bs
> are part of some A'"
> Don't you mean that 'All As are parts of some B' does not imply that
> 'All Bs HAVE for part some A'"
>
> Wouldn't it be useful to introduce the inverse relation of
> is_part_of_directly / is_direct_part_of here ? (in fact I see it's done
> in one of the following sections)
>
> [Section: Use Cases]
> Wouldn't "geographical/spacial modelling" be a good use case too?
>
> [Section: Pattern 2: Defining classes for Parts]
> Font typos for " Part_of_car_directly subsumes" and "and that
> Part_of_car subsumes"
>
> [General]
> The <TITLE> of your draft is still "Defining N-ary Relations (…)"
>
> --
> "Even one is not able to successfully translate
>   one's own thoughts into words"
>                          -- Friedrich Nietzsche.
>   ____________
> |__ _ |_  http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/personnel/Fabien.Gandon/
> |  (_||_) INRIA Sophia Antipolis - ph# (33)(0)4 92 38 77 88

--
Alan L Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL: +44-161-275-6188/6149/7183
FAX: +44-161-275-6236/6204
Room: 2.88a, Kilburn Building
email: rector@cs.man.ac.uk
web: www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
        www.opengalen.org
        www.clinical-escience.org
        www.co-ode.org
Received on Friday, 28 January 2005 18:35:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:14 GMT