I agree that one should expect (some) geographical containment(s) to
represent general partonomy; I guess geonames doesn't because there is
no canonical property for partonomy.
E.g., Geonames has:
:parentFeature a owl:ObjectProperty,
owl:TransitiveProperty;
rdfs:comment "A feature parent of the current one, in either administrative
or physical subdivision."@en;
rdfs:domain :Feature;
rdfs:label "parent feature"@en;
rdfs:range :Feature .
:parentADM1 a owl:ObjectProperty;
rdfs:domain :Feature;
rdfs:label "level 1 administrative parent"@en;
rdfs:range [
a owl:Restriction;
owl:hasValue <#A.ADM1>;
owl:onProperty :featureCode ];
rdfs:subPropertyOf :parentFeature .
But no
:parentFeature rdfs:subPropertyOf
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/part.owl#partOf.
Or
:parentFeature rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:hasPart.
To be honest though, I don't like your example as being a citizen of a
country /doesn't/ imply a partonomy relationship to me (neither might
some kinds of geographic containment - I'm thinking Lesotho-South Africa).
Barry
On 21/02/13 14:10, Frans Knibbe | Geodan wrote:
Barry and Matteo, thank you for pointing me to the GeoNames Ontology.
Geographical containment can also be found in GeoSPARQL
(http://schemas.opengis.net/geosparql/1.0/geosparql_vocab_all.rdf):
sfContains.
I had the feeling that what I primarily needed was the logical concept
of containment/composition, because that would allow reasoning on the
part of the data consumer. But I guess it would be best to specify
both logical AND geographical containment. As far as I can tell, the
geographical containment in GeoSPARQL and GeoNames does not imply
logical containment. But perhaps I am overestimating the power of
dcterms:hasPart?
I was thinking about an example. Let's say the following is known:
1) A country consists of provinces
2) For each country, the complete set of provinces is available
3) For each province the number of inhabitants is available
Could a machine answer the question "Which country has the highest
number of inhabitants?" without help from a human?
Regards,
Frans
On 21-2-2013 14:10, Matteo Casu wrote:
You could also check the GeoNames ontology, which considers
administrative subdivisions:
http://www.geonames.org/ontology/documentation.html
E.G.: in the USA, level 1 administrative subdivisions are States. In
Italy, they are Regions.
It is a minor change of perspective with respect to yours.
Il giorno 21/feb/2013, alle ore 14:01, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
<[email protected]> ha scritto:
Thank you Martynas, that seems to be just what I was looking for!
Frans
On 21-2-2013 13:54, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
Hey Frans,
Dublin Core Terms has some general properties for this:
dct:hasPart http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart
dct:isPartOf
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isPartOf
Martynas
graphity.org
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
I would like to express a composition relationship. Something like:
A Country consist of Provinces
A Province consists of Municipalities
I thought this should be straightforward because this is a common and
logical kind of relationship, but I could not find a vocabulary
which allows
be to make this kind of statement. Perhaps I am bad at searching,
or maybe I
did not use the right words.
I did find this document:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/ ("Simple
part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies"). It explains that OWL has
no direct
support for this kind of relationship and it goes on to give
examples on how
one can create ontologies that do support the relationship in one
way or the
other.
Is there a ready to use ontology/vocabulary out there that can
help me
express containment/composition?
Thanks in advance,
Frans
