[topicmapmail] Superclass-subclass indentation in the Omnigat or

Dicheva, Darina dichevad@wssu.edu
Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:32:15 -0500


This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B8BD.73C5AE60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

> > My question 
> > is how "part-of" relation can be expressed in terms of TM i.e. 
> > "Reinforcement learning" is part of "Machine learning"? I think 
> > that this type of "structural relations" can not be expressed in 
> > terms of  "class-subclass" or "class-instance" relations. Part-of  
> > plays important role in ontology - "class-subclass"  deals with 
> > categorization, while part-of deals with the 
> object-components topology.
> 
> ..., yes, for 'is-part-of' and quite a few more you will need to
> introduce a dedicated association type.
> 
> I think the standards people did a _good_ job not to hard-code a set
> of relations in the XTM standard, like
> 
>   - component-member (wing/airplane)
>   - member-collection (tree/forest)
>   - portion-mass (slice)
>   - place-area (city/country)
>   ....
> 
> They seem to be far too application specific. 

yes - you are right about not hard-coding specific relations in the XTM
standard, however,  "part-of" is general and necessary for representing even
very very simple ontologies, in fact the relationships listed above are all
kind of "part-of" relations, so if I don't want to be very specific in my
ontology I can use "part-of" for expressing them, but I cannot use "is-a"
for that.

Darina

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Darina Dicheva
Department of Computer Science,  Winston-Salem State University
601 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Winston-Salem, N.C. 27110
Phone: (336) 750-2484  http://www.wssu.edu/~dicheva/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
	 







------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B8BD.73C5AE60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [topicmapmail] Superclass-subclass indentation in the =
Omnigat or</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; My question </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; is how &quot;part-of&quot; relation can be =
expressed in terms of TM i.e. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &quot;Reinforcement learning&quot; is part =
of &quot;Machine learning&quot;? I think </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; that this type of &quot;structural =
relations&quot; can not be expressed in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; terms of&nbsp; &quot;class-subclass&quot; =
or &quot;class-instance&quot; relations. Part-of&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; plays important role in ontology - =
&quot;class-subclass&quot;&nbsp; deals with </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; categorization, while part-of deals with =
the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; object-components topology.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; ..., yes, for 'is-part-of' and quite a few more =
you will need to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; introduce a dedicated association type.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I think the standards people did a _good_ job =
not to hard-code a set</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; of relations in the XTM standard, like</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; - component-member =
(wing/airplane)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; - member-collection =
(tree/forest)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; - portion-mass (slice)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; - place-area (city/country)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; ....</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; They seem to be far too application specific. =
</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>yes - you are right about not hard-coding specific =
relations in the XTM standard, however,&nbsp; &quot;part-of&quot; is =
general and necessary for representing even very very simple =
ontologies, in fact the relationships listed above are all kind of =
&quot;part-of&quot; relations, so if I don't want to be very specific =
in my ontology I can use &quot;part-of&quot; for expressing them, but I =
cannot use &quot;is-a&quot; for that.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Darina</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>---------------------------------------------------------------=
----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Darina Dicheva</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Department of Computer Science,&nbsp; Winston-Salem =
State University</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>601 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Winston-Salem, =
N.C. 27110</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Phone: (336) 750-2484&nbsp; <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.wssu.edu/~dicheva/" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.wssu.edu/~dicheva/</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>---------------------------------------------------------------=
-----</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<FONT SIZE=3D2> =
</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B8BD.73C5AE60--