Also, I see there is a slightly later, more technical paper along the same
lines (on
same page): (01)
Guarino, Nicola and Chris Welty. In press. Identity and Subsumption. In Rebecca
Green,
Carol A. Bean, & Sung Hyon Myaeng (Eds.), The Semantics of Relationships: An
Interdisciplinary Perspective. Pp. 111-125. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Preliminary
version
available in [PDF]. Expected publication in early 2002. (02)
Leo Obrst wrote: (03)
> By the way, both of these papers are on Chris Welty's home page:
> http://www.cs.vassar.edu/faculty/welty/.
>
> Leo
>
> Leo Obrst wrote:
>
> > 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 is
> > based on is a frame-based system).
> >
> > Leo
> >
> > 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/
>
> --
> _____________________________________________
> 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
> 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/ (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)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|