- From: Andrei S. Lopatenko <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:48:07 +0100
- To: "Chris Mungall" <cjm@fruitfly.bdgp.berkeley.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Chris There is no "part-of" properties in DAML and I think it is not needed Of course there are a lot of possible relations in different applications, including mereotopological DAML OIL aims to be a language to construct ontologies and thus close to Descriptions Logics Practise shows that such languages need very hard is-a relation (for description generalization), but not others - causal, temporal, spacial, mereotopological, etc So if DAML OIL intended to be a minimal ontology definition language it does not need part-of relations\ OF course, you can define such in your ontology Best regards MSc Andrei S. Lopatenko Researcher Vienna University of Technology A chairman of CERIF Task Group euroCRIS conc. http://purl.org/NET/andrei ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Mungall" <cjm@fruitfly.bdgp.berkeley.edu> To: <benhood@gmx.net> Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>; <jena-dev@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:17 PM Subject: Re: belongsTo > > > 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 > > I work on a biological ontology which frequently uses "partOf" to capture > a wide variety of component/subcomponent relationships > > eg > > subprocessX partOf processY (conceptual composition of biological > processes) > > cell-componentX partOf larger-componentY (physical composition eg of > subcellular compartments) > > We use this in a strict "necessarilyPartOf" sense. > eg > "door partOf car" > would not be allowed, instead we'd have "car-door partOf car, car-door > subClassOf door". this is better for reasoning. > > i'm just getting into rdf/rdfs/daml+oil and i need to convert our ontology > to a standard format - does a standard property exist for this in > daml+oil? i don't want to invent new properties where perfectly good ones > 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 > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 04:48:45 UTC