- From: Leonid Ototsky <leo@mmk.ru>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:38:42 +0500
- To: Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.bdgp.berkeley.edu>
- CC: benhood@gmx.net, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, jena-dev@yahoogroups.com
Hello Chris, Suppose it will be interesting for the "biological ontology" to look at the "To keep abreast of the 21st century" paper. I have put an English version on the www.mgn.ru/~ototsky/menu.htm site under the "For CIO" item. Leonid Tuesday, January 22, 2002, 12:17:04 AM, you wrote: CM> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 benhood@gmx.net wrote: >> Hallo, >> >> I was wondering if there was some generic way of expressing "belongsTo" >> between concepts. I have been repeatedly joining two concepts together, that >> don't have any rdfs:subClassOf or rdfs:subPropertyOf relation, say for example >> >> members of a club/family/organisation >> vocations as members of a union >> planets belonging to a solar system >> possesion of goods/items/qualities/skills/experience CM> I work on a biological ontology which frequently uses "partOf" to capture CM> a wide variety of component/subcomponent relationships CM> eg CM> subprocessX partOf processY (conceptual composition of biological CM> processes) CM> cell-componentX partOf larger-componentY (physical composition eg of CM> subcellular compartments) CM> We use this in a strict "necessarilyPartOf" sense. CM> eg CM> "door partOf car" CM> would not be allowed, instead we'd have "car-door partOf car, car-door CM> subClassOf door". this is better for reasoning. CM> i'm just getting into rdf/rdfs/daml+oil and i need to convert our ontology CM> to a standard format - does a standard property exist for this in CM> daml+oil? i don't want to invent new properties where perfectly good ones CM> exist. >> These concepts appear to me to have no hierarchial relationship and just >> defining the group as list of its members doesn't seem to do justice to my >> conceptual understanding of the entity "group". >> >> daml:oneOf seems to do the job in a number of situations, ie >> >> >>> for oneOf(C, L) read everything in C is one of the things in L; >> >> but I don't think it hits the nail of the head. >> >> Does anybody else think one should generalize the concept of belonging to >> something, or I am just missing the point? >> >> Thanks >> >> Ben >> Best regards, Leonid mailto:leo@mmk.ru and copy to leo@mgn.ru ===================================================== Leonid Ototsky, www.mgn.ru/~ototsky/ototskyhome.html Chief Specialist of the Computer Center, Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works (MMK)- www.mmk.ru Russia =====================================================
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 23:40:56 UTC