Thanks, Bernard, that was (supposed to be) exactly my point about 'some
types of containment', and I was trying to say later that this might
apply to some of the parentFeature sub-properties but not others.
I didn't make myself very clear though; glad you followed up.
Barry
On 21/02/13 15:31, Bernard Vatant wrote:
Hi all
(with my Geonames ontology editor helmet on)
2013/2/21 Barry Norton <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
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.
Well, geography is a tricky domain ... gn:parentFeature is the most
generic hierarchical property between gn:Feature, but it's not a
partonomy stricto sensu, because it covers both physical and
administrative features. And its transitivity entails for example that
Guadeloupe is both child of Europe through its administrative parent
which is France, and child of Northern America by its geographical
location.
In a strict partonomy, seems to me that having two ancestors which are
physically disjoint should be forbidden.
gn:parentFeature rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:hasPart
would make sense since the latter has also a quite loose definition. I
put it on the to-consider list for the next publication.
"A related resource that is included either physically or logically in
the described resource."
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/part.owl#partOf
has probably a stronger semantics.
The double parenthood above would certainly break the results of
population using SPARQL queries such as proposed by Matteo if you
count by continent.
People from Guadeloupe will be counted both as European and American ...
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:subPropertyOfhttp://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]> <mailto:[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 <http://graphity.org>
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
<[email protected]> <mailto:[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
--
*Bernard Vatant
*
Vocabularies & Data Engineering
Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
Skype : bernard.vatant
Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://blog.hubjects.com/>
--------------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca*****
3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/>
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
----------------------------------------------------------
Meet us at Documation <http://www.documation.fr/> in Paris, March 20-21
