Re: How can I express containment/composition?

I agree that one should expect (some) geographical containment(s) to 
represent general partonomy; I guess geonames doesn't because there is 
no canonical property for partonomy.

E.g., Geonames has:

  :parentFeature     a owl:ObjectProperty,
                 owl:TransitiveProperty;
          rdfs:comment "A feature parent of the current one, in either administrative or physical subdivision."@en;
          rdfs:domain :Feature;
          rdfs:label "parent feature"@en;
          rdfs:range :Feature .

  :parentADM1     a owl:ObjectProperty;
          rdfs:domain :Feature;
          rdfs:label "level 1 administrative parent"@en;
          rdfs:range  [
              a owl:Restriction;
              owl:hasValue <#A.ADM1>;
              owl:onProperty :featureCode ];
          rdfs:subPropertyOf :parentFeature .

But no

:parentFeature rdfs:subPropertyOf http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/part.owl#partOf.


Or

:parentFeature rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:hasPart.


To be honest though, I don't like your example as being a citizen of a 
country /doesn't/ imply a partonomy relationship to me (neither might 
some kinds of geographic containment - I'm thinking Lesotho-South Africa).

Barry


On 21/02/13 14:10, Frans Knibbe | Geodan wrote:
> Barry and Matteo, thank you for pointing me to the GeoNames Ontology. 
> Geographical containment can also be found in GeoSPARQL 
> (http://schemas.opengis.net/geosparql/1.0/geosparql_vocab_all.rdf): 
> sfContains.
>
> I had the feeling that what I primarily needed was the logical concept 
> of containment/composition, because that would allow reasoning on the 
> part of the data consumer. But I guess it would be best to specify 
> both logical AND geographical containment. As far as I can tell, the 
> geographical containment in GeoSPARQL and GeoNames does not imply 
> logical containment. But perhaps I am overestimating the power of 
> dcterms:hasPart?
>
> I was thinking about an example. Let's say the following is known:
>
> 1) A country consists of provinces
> 2) For each country, the complete set of provinces is available
> 3) For each province the number of inhabitants is available
>
> Could a machine answer the question "Which country has the highest 
> number of inhabitants?" without help from a human?
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
>
> On 21-2-2013 14:10, Matteo Casu wrote:
>> You could also check the GeoNames ontology, which considers 
>> administrative subdivisions: 
>> http://www.geonames.org/ontology/documentation.html
>> E.G.: in the USA, level 1 administrative subdivisions are States. In 
>> Italy, they are Regions.
>>
>> It is a minor change of perspective with respect to yours.
>>
>>
>> Il giorno 21/feb/2013, alle ore 14:01, Frans Knibbe | Geodan 
>> <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> ha scritto:
>>
>>> Thank you Martynas, that seems to be just what I was looking for!
>>>
>>> Frans
>>>
>>> On 21-2-2013 13:54, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>>>> Hey Frans,
>>>>
>>>> Dublin Core Terms has some general properties for this:
>>>> dct:hasPart http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart
>>>> dct:isPartOf 
>>>> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isPartOf
>>>>
>>>> Martynas
>>>> graphity.org
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
>>>> <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to express a composition relationship. Something like:
>>>>> A Country consist of Provinces
>>>>> A Province consists of Municipalities
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought this should be straightforward because this is a common and
>>>>> logical kind of relationship, but I could not find a vocabulary 
>>>>> which allows
>>>>> be to make this kind of statement. Perhaps I am bad at searching, 
>>>>> or maybe I
>>>>> did not use the right words.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did find this document:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/ ("Simple
>>>>> part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies"). It explains that OWL has 
>>>>> no direct
>>>>> support for this kind of relationship and it goes on to give 
>>>>> examples on how
>>>>> one can create ontologies that do support the relationship in one 
>>>>> way or the
>>>>> other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a ready to use ontology/vocabulary out there that can 
>>>>> help me
>>>>> express containment/composition?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>> Frans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>