- From: Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:46:30 +0000
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51264156.6040109@ontotext.com>
Thanks, Bernard, that was (supposed to be) exactly my point about 'some
types of containment', and I was trying to say later that this might
apply to some of the parentFeature sub-properties but not others.
I didn't make myself very clear though; glad you followed up.
Barry
On 21/02/13 15:31, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> Hi all
>
> (with my Geonames ontology editor helmet on)
>
> 2013/2/21 Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com
> <mailto:barry.norton@ontotext.com>>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Well, geography is a tricky domain ... gn:parentFeature is the most
> generic hierarchical property between gn:Feature, but it's not a
> partonomy stricto sensu, because it covers both physical and
> administrative features. And its transitivity entails for example that
> Guadeloupe is both child of Europe through its administrative parent
> which is France, and child of Northern America by its geographical
> location.
> In a strict partonomy, seems to me that having two ancestors which are
> physically disjoint should be forbidden.
>
> gn:parentFeature rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:hasPart
> would make sense since the latter has also a quite loose definition. I
> put it on the to-consider list for the next publication.
> "A related resource that is included either physically or logically in
> the described resource."
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/part.owl#partOf
> has probably a stronger semantics.
>
> The double parenthood above would certainly break the results of
> population using SPARQL queries such as proposed by Matteo if you
> count by continent.
> People from Guadeloupe will be counted both as European and American ...
>
> 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:subPropertyOfhttp://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> <mailto: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 <http://graphity.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
>>>>> <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> <mailto: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
>
>
> --
> *Bernard Vatant
> *
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://blog.hubjects.com/>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca*****
> 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/>
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Meet us at Documation <http://www.documation.fr/> in Paris, March 20-21
>
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 15:46:54 UTC