By the way, both of these papers are on Chris Welty's home page:
Leo Obrst wrote: (03)
> 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
> Guarino, Nicola and Chris Welty. 2002. Evaluating Ontological Decisions with
> OntoClean. Communications of the ACM. 45(2):61-65. New York:ACM Press.
> Or better:
> Welty, Chris and Nicola Guarino. 2001. Support for Ontological Analysis of
> Taxonomic Relationships. J. Data and Knowledge Engineering. 39(1):51-74.
> October, 2001.
> They use meta-properties like unity, identity, rigidity, etc. I think your
> notion of transience would be a -Rigid value.
> 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
> based on is a frame-based system).
> Dean Black wrote:
> > 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/
> 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
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ (04)
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 (05)
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (06)