[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Roles in the UBL Trading Cycle

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Leo Obrst <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:35:33 -0500
Message-id: <3E67B115.77D86570@xxxxxxxxx>
I tend to agree. In fact, when developing an ontology's taxonomic backbone, I
would try to adhere to Guarino and Welty's OntoClean methodology (now merged
with Methontology): see the article    (01)

Guarino, Nicola and Chris Welty. 2002. Evaluating Ontological Decisions with
OntoClean. Communications of the ACM. 45(2):61-65. New York:ACM Press.    (02)

Or better:    (03)

Welty, Chris and Nicola Guarino. 2001. Support for Ontological Analysis of
Taxonomic Relationships. J. Data and Knowledge Engineering. 39(1):51-74.
October, 2001.    (04)

They use meta-properties like unity, identity, rigidity, etc. I think your
notion of transience would be a -Rigid value.    (05)

Also, note that in general we use the term relation or property, rather than
association. Frame-based KR systems call this a "slot" (the OKBC that Protege is
based on is a frame-based system).    (06)

Leo    (07)

Dean Black wrote:    (08)

> I would tend to model both Buyer and Seller as the names of associations
> that exist between an Order instance and two Parties (I'm introducing a
> commonly used superclass of Organization/Individual).  So an Order (in this
> simplistic example) would have an association to Party called Buyer, and a
> second association to Party called Seller.
> In protege, I think this is modeled by creating two slots in the Order
> class, one named Buyer, the second Seller, and then declaring each of those
> slots to have a Value Type of CLASS.  When you declare a slot to be of type
> class, then you also provide the class (or classes) that are allowed to fill
> that slot.  In this case it would be PARTY for each of the two slots.
> Of course, my explanation is based upon downloading Protege for the first
> time last night and playing with it for an hour or so, so I'm pretty much
> going out on a limb here.  Is this how you real Protege experts would model
> this, or is there a more appropriate way?
> I don't see Buyer as a subclass (or interface) of Party (or another class),
> because Buyer is a totally transient notion, a role as you pointed out, and
> a class hierarchy in an ontology (I believe) should be trying to model more
> permanent notions.  For example, a Zebra is always permanently a Mammal, and
> it doesn't transition or morph from being one species to another, therefore
> it would be a legitimate subclass of Mammal in an ontology.  (Hope I'm
> making a clear and understandable distinction between "permanent" and
> "transient" states of being.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of MDaconta@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:10 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Roles in the UBL Trading Cycle
> Hi All,
> In beginning to look at the UBL op70 library some classes
> quickly become apparent for the basic business scenario of
> purchasing a product.
> Invoice
> Order
> Product
> Buyer
> Seller
> Of course, Invoice and Order are artifacts of this purchase transaction.
> Thus maybe they should be subclasses of Artifact (or possibly subclasses
> of Document which is a subclass of Artifact ...).
> The last two gave me pause because buyer and seller are actually
> a role that an Organization or Individual takes on when being a party to
> this transaction.  This brings me to the question: is it better to model
> buyer and seller as a Role (or interface) than as a subclass of
> Person or Organization?  Of course, UML has a notion of Interface but
> I do not believe protege nor RDFS supports the notion of an interface or
> role.
> Which in turn leads us to the question of what are the semantics behind
> the notion of a Role in a data model (ontology) that does not touch upon
> behavior?
> - Mike
> -------------------------------
> Michael C. Daconta
> Chief Scientist, Advanced Programs Group
> McDonald Bradley, Inc.
> www.daconta.net
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/    (09)

Dr. Leo Obrst  The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-883-1379       McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA    (010)

To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/    (011)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>