ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Thoughts on the status of Ontological "Geospatial" P

To: ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:13:19 -0500
Message-id: <AANLkTikPLWMTt9QjFLfh_sCz7Q=z9xL=Q_a0_dz5AiLG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ian,    (01)

It's been a while but I recall many find discussions in Bailey's book.
 I'm not familiar with Heller's Ontology of Physical Objects so  I
will take a look there.    (02)

One point is that philosophical discussions are useful, but I'd like
them to be manifested in ontologies expressable in formalisms.
Perhaps Heller does this.    (03)

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.   gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
NSF INTEROP Project
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Knowledge Strategies     Semantic Technology
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770    (04)

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Ian Bailey <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> You may have already read it, but Peter Simon's book - Parts:A Study in
> Ontology is pretty good and discusses some of the issues you raise. Mark
> Heller's Ontology of Physical Objects is pretty good too.
>
> Ian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Berg-Cross
> Sent: 14 December 2010 17:55
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Thoughts on the status of Ontological "Geospatial"
> Part relations
>
> At the recent SOCoP workshop on geosemantics (
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SOCoP/Workshop_Agenda_2010_12_03
> ) several presenters mentioned in passing work on the concept of
> “part-of” with one speaker tossing out the notion that this remains an
> unsolved ontological geospatial topic although one points to Mereology
> for some understanding. In some parts of the GIS community Rosanne
> Price’s 3 types of part-whole relationships are probably
> representative - spatial part, spatial membership, and spatial
> inclusion. These semantics were modeled loosely in UML however (I have
> read that Guizzardi’s 2005 dissertation addressed some of the prpblems
> with expressing part-whole in UML -  Ontological Foundations for
> Structural Conceptual Models. Phd thesis, University of Twente,)
>
> It got me to thinking whether there was an agreement on where we are
> on this issue. What formal Ontologies have broached this in detail and
> how do various efforts compare?
>
> Obviously Cyc has addressed this. The Open Cyc Part-Whole Vocabulary
> is at http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/vocab/part-vocab.html Among the
> geospatial part concepts (not the organizational ones or “fish are
> part of the ocean examples) they discuss are:
>
> #$physicalParts captures the commonsense idea of a regular physical
> object’s parts.  So it is used in Cyc to refer to human-identifiable
> “physically-separable parts” of an object, including parts that are
> glued or welded together.   Examples of parts with its own identity
> (i.e. the wheels of a car, the tail of a dog, the fingers on a hand,
> etc.).
>
> In that ontology #$physicalDecompositions is used for an ARBITRARY
> physical chunk of an object.  In Opencyc this is distinct from
> #$physicalPortions which refers to a portion that contains a
> representative sample of everything in the whole.  So a physical
> portion of a salad with five ingredients might have representatives of
> all five ingredients, whereas a physical decomposition might have only
> one, two, or three of the ingredients.
>
> #$anatomicalParts refers to parts like physical parts, but anatomical
> parts each have their own anatomical function (i.e. the throat of a
> dog, the nervous system of a person, the eye of a bird).
>
> There might be more specializations of this anatomicalPart in
> something like OBO and I know that various researchers involved with
> DOLCE talk about essential and mandatory parts.
>
> Is there any work that looks at the whole of this and provides some
> guidance on where we are in this topic?
>
> Mappings between ontologies might be interesting and could be done as
> part of OOR work, but we shouldn’t reinvent the ontological wheel.
>
>
> --
> Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.   gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
> NSF INTEROP Project
> http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816
> SOCoP Executive Secretary
> Knowledge Strategies     Semantic Technology
> Potomac, MD
> 240-426-0770
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>    (05)



--    (06)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>