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

Re: belongsTo

From: Andrei S. Lopatenko <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:48:37 +0100
Message-ID: <015701c1a2d6$6a5040f0$a6498280@tuwien.ac.at>
To: "Chris Mungall" <cjm@fruitfly.bdgp.berkeley.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Just example for you application
If you have more precise definition of you part-of, please, write me, I'll
try to create more precise defintion of part-of for you case
Here it is
1 apart of is a transitive property  so if x is part of y & y is a part of z
then x is a part of z
2 Car-door door is a Door which a part of Car  - by definition  i think it
is close to that how we think
3 Not-car-door is all other Doors and it is impossible for Not-car-door to
be  part of Car

It is impossible to say that Door can not be a part of Car, but subclass
Car-door of door can be a part of Car
If it is exactly what you wanted? If not, please, write me, I can create
some code for you to demonstrate how it works

Best regards
MSc Andrei S. Lopatenko
Vienna University of Technology
A chairman of CERIF Task Group
euroCRIS conc.

  xmlns:rdf ="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns:xsd ="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#"
  xmlns     ="http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-ex#"
<daml:Class rdf:about="http://part-of#Door">
<daml:Class rdf:about="http://part-of#Car-door">
    <rdfs:comment>Door which is a part of car</rdfs:comment>
    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource=http://part-of#Door>
            <daml:onProperty rdf:resource="http://part-of#part-of">
            <daml:toClass rdf:resource="http://part-of#Car">
<daml:Class rdf:about="http://part-of#Car">
    <rdfs:comment>A Car</rdfs:comment>
<daml:Class rdf:about="http://part-of#Not-car-door">
    <rdfs:comment>Door which is not a part of car</rdfs:comment>
    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource=http://part-of#Door>
            <daml:ComplementOf rdf:resource=http://part-of#Car-door>
<daml:TransitiveProperty rdf:about=http://part-of#part-of>
     <rdfs:label>Part-of property</rdfs:label>
     <rdfs:comment>A property which express physical containment relational
     <daml:disjointWith rdf:resource="http://part-of#Car-door"/>

----- 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,
> > don't have any rdfs:subClassOf or rdfs:subPropertyOf relation, say for
> >
> > 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
> > 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
> > something, or I am just missing the point?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ben
> >
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 06:51:04 UTC

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