W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2002

Re: belongsTo

From: Andrei S. Lopatenko <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:48:07 +0100
Message-ID: <00c901c1a2c5$4fd80a20$a6498280@tuwien.ac.at>
To: "Chris Mungall" <cjm@fruitfly.bdgp.berkeley.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Chris
There is no "part-of" properties in DAML and I think it is not needed
Of course there are a lot of possible relations in different applications,
including  mereotopological
DAML OIL aims to be a language to construct ontologies and thus close to
Descriptions Logics
Practise shows that such languages need very hard  is-a relation (for
description generalization), but not others - causal, temporal, spacial,
mereotopological, etc
So if DAML OIL intended to be a minimal ontology definition language it does
not need part-of relations\
OF course, you can define such in your ontology

Best regards
MSc Andrei S. Lopatenko
Researcher
Vienna University of Technology

A chairman of CERIF Task Group
euroCRIS conc.
http://purl.org/NET/andrei




----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Mungall" <cjm@fruitfly.bdgp.berkeley.edu>
To: <benhood@gmx.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>; <jena-dev@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: belongsTo


>
>
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 benhood@gmx.net wrote:
>
> > Hallo,
> >
> > I was wondering if there was some generic way of expressing "belongsTo"
> > between concepts. I have been repeatedly joining two concepts together,
that
> > don't have any rdfs:subClassOf or rdfs:subPropertyOf relation, say for
example
> >
> > members of a club/family/organisation
> > vocations as members of a union
> > planets belonging to a solar system
> > possesion of goods/items/qualities/skills/experience
>
> I work on a biological ontology which frequently uses "partOf" to capture
> a wide variety of component/subcomponent relationships
>
> eg
>
> subprocessX partOf processY (conceptual composition of biological
> processes)
>
> cell-componentX partOf larger-componentY (physical composition eg of
> subcellular compartments)
>
> We use this in a strict "necessarilyPartOf" sense.
> eg
> "door partOf car"
> would not be allowed, instead we'd have "car-door partOf car, car-door
> subClassOf door". this is better for reasoning.
>
> i'm just getting into rdf/rdfs/daml+oil and i need to convert our ontology
> to a standard format - does a standard property exist for this in
> daml+oil? i don't want to invent new properties where perfectly good ones
> exist.
>
>
> > These concepts appear to me to have no hierarchial relationship and just
> > defining the group as list of its members doesn't seem to do justice to
my
> > conceptual understanding of the entity "group".
> >
> > daml:oneOf seems to do the job in a number of situations, ie
> >
> > >>> for oneOf(C, L) read everything in C is one of the things in L;
> >
> > but I don't think it hits the nail of the head.
> >
> > Does anybody else think one should generalize the concept of belonging
to
> > something, or I am just missing the point?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ben
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 04:48:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT