Re: [OEP] Simple Part-Whole Relations - draft 1

I'd prefer to leave the geographical containment off this note.  It is at 
best debateable to call "geographical/spatial modeling" a use case for 
part of.

Pat has committed to working on a note on space - and it should be clear 
that is a better place for it.


Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA   
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
Email:, Web:

Alan Rector <> 
Sent by:
01/27/2005 10:05 PM

Fabien Gandon <>
best-practice <>
Re: [OEP] Simple Part-Whole Relations - draft 1


Thanks for the comments.

.  I'll tidy things up.

Obviously the "All As part of some Bs" should be that it doesn't imply 
"All Bs
have part some A.".
That is a serious typo and needs fixing as soon as I am back where I can 
a new copy.  I must
have been asleep.  The other things will get fixed in due course when I 
have a
good list of typos
and suggestions for rewording.

I didn't include geographical containment in this version - but should 
have put
it on the to do list.  Geogrpahical entities are individuals, and although 
poses no theoretical problem, to get a version to work with Racer or 
requires care.  I'd probably rather make that a separate addendum.  I 
didn't want to hold up the main note while I did it.



Again, thanks for the comments.



Fabien Gandon wrote:

> Alan Rector a écrit :
> > The first draft of a note on simple part-whole relations for defining 
classes is
> > at
> >

> Hello Alan,
> Once again you have authored a very promising document.
> While reading it I wrote down a few comments, mainly details, see below.
> Best,
> Fabien
> [Section: Transitive relations - parts and direct parts]
> "(...) will draw the conclusions that the parts of C include both A and 
> I understand what is meant here but (probably because I am not a native
> speaker) I find it ambiguous (when first reading it I understood it as
> "any part of C would include both A and B" which is wrong) and I would
> rather say something like
> "(...) will draw the conclusions that the set of the parts of C includes
> both A and B."
> " is_part_of_directly" I would prefer " is_direct_part_of" because it
> makes the reading of triples more natural: anA is_direct_part_of  aB
> [Section: Choosing whether to use is_part_of or has_part]
> "To say that 'All As are parts of some B' does not imply that 'All Bs
> are part of some A'"
> Don't you mean that 'All As are parts of some B' does not imply that
> 'All Bs HAVE for part some A'"
> Wouldn't it be useful to introduce the inverse relation of
> is_part_of_directly / is_direct_part_of here ? (in fact I see it's done
> in one of the following sections)
> [Section: Use Cases]
> Wouldn't "geographical/spacial modelling" be a good use case too?
> [Section: Pattern 2: Defining classes for Parts]
> Font typos for " Part_of_car_directly subsumes" and "and that
> Part_of_car subsumes"
> [General]
> The <TITLE> of your draft is still "Defining N-ary Relations (?)"
> --
> "Even one is not able to successfully translate
>   one's own thoughts into words"
>                          -- Friedrich Nietzsche.
>   ____________
> |__ _ |_
> |  (_||_) INRIA Sophia Antipolis - ph# (33)(0)4 92 38 77 88

Alan L Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL: +44-161-275-6188/6149/7183
FAX: +44-161-275-6236/6204
Room: 2.88a, Kilburn Building

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 15:53:10 UTC