Re: belongsTo

Chris
PS
1 to make your part of rellation understandable by some agents
you can derive it from some well-known vocabularies like Cyc
in Cyc you have property physicalParts what I think is a good superclass for
dor part of car (bot not for proccesses)
So you can specify
<daml:TransitiveProperty rdf:about=http://part-of#physicalParts>
    <rdfs:subClassOf
rdf:resource=http://opencyc.sourceforge.net/daml/cyc#physicalParts"/>
</daml:TransitiveProperty>
2 to be more precise you can also specify that Car is not door
3 Sorry, all R in "youR" suddenly disappeared in my previous letter
----- 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 07:12:21 UTC