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

```Alan Rector a écrit :
> The first draft of a note on simple part-whole relations for defining classes is
> at
>  http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector/swbp/simple-part-whole/simple-part-whole-relations-v0-2.html

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 B."
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.
____________
|__ _ |_  http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/personnel/Fabien.Gandon/
|  (_||_) INRIA Sophia Antipolis - ph# (33)(0)4 92 38 77 88
```

Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 13:19:22 UTC