Thank you indeed for your detailed replies. (01)
Your comments gave me the pleasant impression that my original message
managed to characterize the nature of the problem that I am trying to
untangle. At the same time I realize that I have some misconceptions
on the use of OWL (OWL-DL) and on how I am approaching the modeling of
these examples. (02)
I would like to take the feedback gathered and put forward a new
version of these examples where the representation of a
"classification criterion" of a domain concept is better aligned with
the capabilities and intended use of OWL-DL. (03)
In the meantime, there are a few clarifications that I would like to
make which can be found below in-line. (04)
Thanks again,
Bene (05)
>>> In the process I have come across what I think it is an interesting
>>> modeling scenario. Let me use a simple example to describe it
>>> extracted from [1]. Consider the following set of classes (as a
>>> subset of a larger ontology model) in the popular domain of "family
>>> relationships" organized according to the following subsumption
>>> hierarchy:
>>> :Person
>>> |-- :Man
>>> |-- :Woman
>>> |-- :Parent
>>> |-- :Child
>>> |-- :Sibling
>
> I am not sure what is meant by the class, Child. This could mean every
> person under a certain age, or any person who
> has a living parent. Parent and Sibling, as classes, could mean those
> who have ever had a child/sibling or those who currently
> have one. (06)
I think for the characterization I was trying to make of the problem
these distinctions may not play a major part, however in order to
clarify the context, the way I was looking at these classes was
:Parent, :Sibling and :Child(or :Offspring maybe) those who currently
have a living child, sibling and parent respectively. (07)
>>> - Are these classes :PersonByGender and :PersonByKinship in fact
>>> meta-classes?
>
> Yes, they are. And they are not subclasses of Person. Their instances
> are subclasses of person.
>
>> I have no idea what a meta-class is, in your view. But if they are OWL
>> classes, then they are identical to the OWL class Person. (08)
By meta-classes I was also referring to "classes of classes". I think
Doug's reply have detailed the intended idea very well. (09)
>
> Reference [2] does not have classes WineByColor and WineByGrape.
>>> :Wine
>>> |-- :WineByColor
>>> | |-- :WhiteWine
>>> | |-- :RedWine
>>> | |-- (etc.)
>>> |-- :WineByGrape
>>> |-- :PinotGrigioWine
>>> |-- :MerlotWine
>>> |-- :CabernetSauvignonWine
>>> |-- (etc.) (010)
That is true. I guess I should have specified that :WineByColor and
:WineByGrape were *not* part of the original example in [2]. I
modified [2] and introduced them to show another "intuitive" case of
the same modeling problem that could be easily related to the example
of :Person. (011)
>>> - Are there some guidelines or good-practices on how to represent
>>> concepts that correspond to a “classification criterion” of the
>>> domain concept that is being modeled?
>>
>> No.
>
> This is done in higher-order ontology languages such as Cyc. See [3] or
> [4]. (012)
Thanks for the references. (013)
New findings to follow hopefully very soon. (014)
Bene (015)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (016)
|