[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>> > My question </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > is how "part-of" relation can be =
expressed in terms of TM i.e. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > "Reinforcement learning" is part =
of "Machine learning"? I think </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > that this type of "structural =
relations" can not be expressed in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > terms of "class-subclass" =
or "class-instance" relations. Part-of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > plays important role in ontology - =
"class-subclass" deals with </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > categorization, while part-of deals with =
the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> object-components topology.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ..., yes, for 'is-part-of' and quite a few more =
you will need to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> introduce a dedicated association type.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I think the standards people did a _good_ job =
not to hard-code a set</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> of relations in the XTM standard, like</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> - component-member =
(wing/airplane)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> - member-collection =
(tree/forest)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> - portion-mass (slice)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> - place-area (city/country)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ....</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 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, "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.</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, 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 <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.wssu.edu/~dicheva/" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.wssu.edu/~dicheva/</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>---------------------------------------------------------------=
-----</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2> =
</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B8BD.73C5AE60--