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

Gary,
two quick remarks:

It seems that OBO relations are defined over 'continuants' (i.e., roughly, 
objects) and 'occurrents' (processes) but I don't find a 'foundational 
ontology' where these two classes are defined (maybe I miss something?)

I would suggest avoiding the mix of is_a with first-order relationships 
like 'part', since the former has a specific logical import (subclass of) 
which is natively axiomatized in any description logic like owl.

Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,

Guido Vetere
Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
-----------------------
IBM Italia S.p.A.
via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome, 
Italy
-----------------------
mail:     gvetere@it.ibm.com
phone: +39 06 59662137
mobile: +39 335 7454658





Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@gmail.com> 
Sent by: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org
27/04/2009 01.25

To
paola.dimaio@gmail.com
cc
public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Subject
Standard ontological relations for our voc -leverating Obo relations






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 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
part_of
+
 
+
+
View detailed summary
integral_part_of
+
 
+
+
View detailed summary
proper_part_of
+
 
 
 
View detailed summary
located_in
+
 
+
 
View detailed summary
contained_in
 
 
 
 
View detailed summary
adjacent_to
 
 
 
 
View detailed summary
transformation_of
+
 
 
 
View detailed summary
derives_from
+
 
 
 
View detailed summary
preceded_by
+
 
 
 
View detailed summary
has_participant
 
 
 
 
View detailed summary
has_agent
 
 
 
 
View detailed summary
instance_of
 
 
 
 
View detailed summary

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

-- 




-- 




IBM Italia S.p.A.
Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI) 
Cap. Soc. euro 400.001.359
C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
Società soggetta all?attività di direzione e coordinamento di 
International Business Machines Corporation

(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise 
above)