Re: Standard ontological relations for our voc -leverating Obo relations

Gary
thanks a lot
I do think the OBO relations ontology is great and have referenced it before

not sure
a) if it contains all the relations in our current model
b) where you suggest this is inserted at this point in our scheduled
deliverables
(how would they substitute/overlay the relations in our framework diagram?)


cheers
P

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@gmail.com>wrote:

> Paola
>
>
>
> An ontology needs some defined relations and so do any vocabulary
> defintions.
>
> The table below is the “ontology” of core relations for use by OBO<http://obo.sourceforge.net/>Foundry (ontologies
> http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#details).  I can see using all but perhaps
> the “derives from” relation in our vocabulary and ontology work.
>
> The set they have handles 3 types of “part” relations and has several
> geospatial relations we need (e.g. located in, adjacent to) and handles
> sequences (preceded by) and a way of showing aggregate events/actions (has
> participant).  We might at least standardize the way we use relations in
> glossary definitions and point back to these as the standard definition.
>
>
>
> *Summary Table*
>
> *name *
>
> *transitive *
>
> *symmetric *
>
> *reflexive *
>
> *anti-symmetric *
>
> *documentation *
>
> is_a
>
> +
>
>
>
> +
>
> +
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:is_a%23OBO_REL:is_a>
>
> part_of
>
> +
>
>
>
> +
>
> +
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:part_of%23OBO_REL:part_of>
>
> integral_part_of
>
> +
>
>
>
> +
>
> +
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:integral_part_of%23OBO_REL:integral_part_of>
>
> proper_part_of
>
> +
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:proper_part_of%23OBO_REL:proper_part_of>
>
> located_in
>
> +
>
>
>
> +
>
>
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:located_in%23OBO_REL:located_in>
>
> contained_in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:contained_in%23OBO_REL:contained_in>
>
> adjacent_to
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:adjacent_to%23OBO_REL:adjacent_to>
>
> transformation_of
>
> +
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:transformation_of%23OBO_REL:transformation_of>
>
> derives_from
>
> +
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:derives_from%23OBO_REL:derives_from>
>
> preceded_by
>
> +
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:preceded_by%23OBO_REL:preceded_by>
>
> has_participant
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:has_participant%23OBO_REL:has_participant>
>
> has_agent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:has_agent%23OBO_REL:has_agent>
>
> instance_of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View detailed summary<http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:instance_of%23OBO_REL:instance_of>
>
> Of course this doesn't straighten out the issues of what to present about
> ontology and voc in the final report, but it is at least a step on
> standardization for some semantics.
>
> Gary Berg-Cross,Ph.D.
> gbergcross@gmail.com
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
> SOCoP Executive Secretary
> Principal, EM&I Semantic Technology
> Potomac, MD
> 301-762-5441
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:03 PM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> (apol for array of emails, I am on discovery mode)
>>
>>
>> also another example of recent work
>>
>> http://webkr.cs.vu.nl/slides/WebKR_Lecture7_2.pdf
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************