- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:33:05 +0200
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org, "Alistair Miles" <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>
2008/9/30 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> [snip] > > Hence my question here. How do ontologists lately tend to model things like an aircraft part, or other mass-produced item, when we have a situation in which (a) the design of these copied itself needs modeling (b) their instances may be flawed, damaged or lack adherance in various ways towards their stereotypical ideal. For what it's worth I've got a still unfulfilled use case for such a model - and also had something along the lines of FRBR in mind: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Apr/0024.html Don't think I got any on-list feedback on that, though there was an interesting ref. in a comment from Richard Urban on the FRBR blog: [[ This seems like the perfect job for the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model, which includes part-whole relations as well as a way to differentiate conceptual plans from as-built modifications. (and already includes properties for broken things). http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/ Peter Simons and Charles Dement also discuss different senses of part-of that are present in a manufacturing process. i.e. the engineering blank is different kind of part than the final manufactured component of the guitar. See Simons, P. and Dement C. (1996). Aspects of the Mereology of Artifacts in Roberto Poli and Peter Simons (Ed.) Formal Ontology. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ]] http://www.frbr.org/2007/04/04/ayers-how-to-describe-composite-products Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com ~ http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/
Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 12:33:41 UTC