- From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:51:52 -0500
- To: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org, "West, Matthew" <matthew.west@shell.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Message-ID: <1e89d6a40612301851pf9588a4g93b3c158313acb9e@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Hans, Mathew, Pat and All -- Possibly the approach to continuants in [1] may be helpful, and maybe also the way it is implemented in the example [2]. HTH, -- Adrian [1] ''Relations in biomedical ontologies'' by Barry Smith et al, Genome Biology 2005. http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46 [2] www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/RelBioOntDefn3.agent Adrian Walker Reengineering On 12/29/06, Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote: > > Chris, > > What about defining an OWL Class "Activity", then a subClassOf that > called "Meeting", and then the meeting you had in mind as an instance of it. > Peter then isHost of that instance of Meeting. > > What still is missing is the temporal aspect. Our solution for that so far > found a cold shoulder in the OWL scene. That solution is to define "temporal > parts"[1]. The "temporal whole" of Peter is Peter between his birth and his > (future) death. A temporal part is a part of that whole-life time span in > which a certain fact is true. In this case there is a temporal part of Peter > that "isHost" of that particular meeting. > > Regards, > Hans > > [1] > http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.html , > then select temporal_whole_part > > PS I quote from that: > > A <temporal_whole_part> is a <composition_of_individual> that indicates > that one <possible_individual> is a temporal part of another > <possible_individual>. The spatial extent of the temporal part is that of > the temporal whole for the period of the existence of the temporal part. > Relationships that apply to the whole <possible_individual> also apply to > the temporal parts of the <possible_individual>, except when the > relationships relate to the temporal nature of the whole. So if a > <possible_individual> is connected so are all its temporal parts, but being > a <whole_life_individual> is not inherited by its temporal parts. > NOTE Since <temporal_whole_part> is transitive (inherited from its > supertype) a hierarchy of temporal parts is possible, with a > <whole_life_individual> at the top. > EXAMPLE 1 The relation that indicates that an operating period of a pump > is a temporal part of the pump can be represented by an instance of > <temporal_whole_part>. > EXAMPLE 2 The relationship that indicates that the time period known as > March 1999 is part of the period known as 1st Quarter 1999 can be > represented by an instance of <temporal_whole_part>. > > ____________________ > OntoConsult > Hans Teijgeler > ISO 15926 specialist > Netherlands > +31-72-509 2005 > www.InfowebML.ws <http://www.infowebml.ws/> > hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl > > ------------------------------ > *From:* C Haley [mailto:cands589@yahoo.co.uk] > *Sent:* Monday, September 11, 2006 20:23 > *To:* public-owl-dev@w3.org > *Subject:* > > Hi > > I've been reading through the various OWL documents and from what I've > seen it appears that OWL is very good at representing state information, > either of classes or individuals, but does not seem to allow for > representing non-state relationships. > > For example I can use OWL to represent the concept 'man' as a class, > represent Peter as an instance of that class, and I can define a property > stateOfHealth, and the concept ill, and create a triple to say > stateOfHealth(Peter, ill). This is representing a fact which defines the > state of an instance. > > But suppose I want to represent the fact that Peter hosted a meeting in > the office yesterday. > > Even if I created an artificial property 'toHost' and a blank node as an > instance of the concept 'meeting', there is no way to attach the time and > location to the property. > > Also I would want this property to derive from a URI representing the > concept of 'hosting a meeting', but the OWL syntax seems to require > properties to derive from other properties, not from a generic URI. So > clearly this is not the correct way to represent an action. > > Can anyone tell me if there are any recommendations or documents > describing the preferred solution to this problem? Alternatively is this an > area where the existing OWL syntax/vocabulary is likely to be extended - is > anyone actively working on this issue at present? Are there any draft > recommendations in circulation? > > Many thanks for any comments anyone can give. > > Chris > > > ------------------------------ > Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. *Enter now*<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/mobile_o2/*http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry> > . > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.0.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/447 - Release Date: 13-Sep-06 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/607 - Release Date: 28-Dec-06 > 12:31 >
Received on Sunday, 31 December 2006 02:51:59 UTC