Dear Michel, thanks for your comment. Of course defining a relation "has_part" is working. The problem is, that I (or anyone with the same aggregation context) must define this for myself.
Thus, my question is targeted on a standard/ standard pattern in RDF/ OWL that defines this aggregation, because this ensures using the same semantic of an aggregation over all ontologies (i.e. the UML symbol for an aggregation has a standard semantic when it is used within a class diagram). Regards Mathias On Mar 18, 10:45 am, "Bohms, H.M. (Michel)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Mathias, > > Why is this not satisfying? (ie hasParts and with QCR constraints for > instance) ? > > Check out TBC-pattern with parent/child/index (see earlier mails; like > mine on "order") > > Cheers Michel > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of damappi > Sent: 18 March 2009 09:48 > To: TopBraid Composer Users > Subject: [tbc-users] Best way to specifiy aggregations in TBC? > > Hello, > > I would like to specify an aggregation- relation between two concepts. > One approach could be to create an object property "consists_of" and > create a restriction between the concepts, but for me this solution is > nonsatisfying. Is there a standard construct specified within OWL to > express aggregations or rather a better way to specifiy this in TBC? > > Thanks for your help > > Mathias > > This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER > athttp://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
