(1) team is-part-of club - ok
(2) club is-part-of federation - should be QUALIFIED club is-part-of federation
(3) not every such clubs' team is-part-of federation - true, because not every club is qualified.
So I'm still looking for a plain example of a "non-transitive part relation" about which apparently everyone here has an intuitive understanding but, to me, seems kinda squirrelly.
thanks - jmc
On 19.05.2013 03:41, Hassan Aït-Kaci wrote:
On 5/19/2013 12:26 PM, Matthew West wrote:
Dear Hassan,
This is conflating two things:
a) Membership of a club to a sports federation, and of a player to a sports club
b) Whole-part.
I would argue that it is the membership relation that is not transitive, but that it is quite reasonable to create a mereological sum of the players of the clubs that are members of a sports club and of a sports federation, and that this is transitive.
I was referring to: (1) team is-part-of club and (2) club is-part-of federation - although (3) not every such clubs' team is-part-of federation. I was not referring to player is-member-of team - this is only incidental is the definition of a club being part of a federation if it has an all-professional team. Such a team would be part of a federation, but not the other non-pro teams on such a club. One could come up with another condition for a club to be part of a federation - say if it has at least one team that qualifies a being part of the federation (whatever the condition may be).
_________________________________________________________________
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