A good source is Holger's blog on the Composite Design Pattern doe representing part-of relationships: http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2007/07/composite-design-pattern-in-rdfowl.html
-- Scott On Mar 18, 10:42 am, "Bohms, H.M. (Michel)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, in that respect I think such a standard does not yet exist. A > standard for use in TBC does exist as mentioned. > In our W3C Product Modelling Incubator Group (XG) we are currently > discussing such "standard" patterns for product structure incl. > decomposition (actually combined with the issue of type versus > individual modelling involving roles of things, the class FrontWheel > etc.). > > Cheers, Michel > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of damappi > Sent: 18 March 2009 14:14 > To: TopBraid Composer Users > Subject: [tbc-users] Re: Best way to specifiy aggregations in TBC? > > 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 > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
