Re: How can I express containment/composition?

Hi Frans,

You wrote..

*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?
*
Here's how to do this in Executable English:

www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/CountryProvincePopulation1.agent

You can view, run and change the example (and get explanations of answers)
by pointing a Firefox or Chrome browser to www.reengineeringllc.com .
Click on "Internet Business Logic", then on "GO", and choose
CountryProvincePopulation1.

Apologies if you have seen this before, and thanks for comments.

                                                    -- Adrian

Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL
and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements

Adrian Walker
Reengineering



On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan <
frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> 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<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<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 <http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart>
>>>> dct:isPartOf http://dublincore.org/**documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-**
>>>> 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/<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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>