W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2002

Re[2]: belongsTo

From: Leonid Ototsky <leo@mmk.ru>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:38:42 +0500
Message-ID: <17318.020122@mmk.ru>
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.


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,
mailto:leo@mmk.ru and copy to leo@mgn.ru
Leonid Ototsky,
Chief Specialist of the Computer Center,
Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works (MMK)- www.mmk.ru
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 23:40:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:34 UTC