New version of BFO OWL from Stefan
Alan Ruttenberg
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/source/browse/trunk/src/ontology/owl-schulz/bfo.owl
On the matter of has_quality, I note that there is the relation
'quality of' in the doc. Do we want to have some policy of providing
inverse relations for all relations? To have it only in those cases
where the doc says? Or to review and negotiate inclusion in the doc
for those we feel are useful?
-Alan
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Stefan Schulz
<stefan...@medunigraz.at> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> here is a new OWL version of BFO 2.0, following the most recent
> release of the draft document. I excluded some relations which no
> longer occur in the document, e.g. has_quality.
>
> Apologies for sending the new file as an attachment, but unfortunately
> my svn client (Tortoise) was unsuccessful in connecting to the bfo
> repo (error code 405).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stefan
>
>
> --
>
> Stefan SCHULZ (Univ.-Prof. Dr. med.)
>
> Institut für Medizinische Informatik,
> Statistik und Dokumentation
> Medizinische Universität Graz
> Auenbruggerplatz 2/V
> 8036 Graz (Austria)
>
> http://www.medunigraz.at/imi
> http://g.co/maps/aqedt
>
> +43 (0)316 385 16939
> +43 (0)316 385 13201
>
> http://purl.org/steschu
> mailto:stefan...@medunigraz.at
> Skype: stschulz
>
> [ home: Afritschgasse 32/3
> [ 8020 Graz (Austria)
> [ mobile: +43 (0)699 150 96270
> [ http://g.co/maps/m8rau
Chris Mungall
I would vote for always naming the inverse.
On the subject of names, what naming convention are we using? I favour sticking with the conventional 'quality of', 'part of' etc in contrast to "is part of" etc
Alan Ruttenberg
>
> I would vote for always naming the inverse.
>
> On the subject of names, what naming convention are we using? I favour sticking with the conventional 'quality of', 'part of' etc in contrast to "is part of" etc
We should indeed have a convention - the current ones for relations
seem to not be theory based. I'd like to propose that the principle is
that when reading a r b, we get an english sentence, which is what
motivates the verb "is". In my version I also included alternative
terms, with the verb, and without verb but with underscores instead of
spaces.
Note that the current practice is mixed, with some relations having
verbs (participates_in, has_quality, etc) and some not (part_of) and I
think it looks a bit shoddy because of it. Having the relations being
readable as a grammatical sentence in the common case seems like a
principle that can be applied uniformly.
-Alan
Stefan Schulz
>>
>> I would vote for always naming the inverse.
>>
>> On the subject of names, what naming convention are we using? I favour sticking with the conventional 'quality of', 'part of' etc in contrast to "is part of" etc
>
> We should indeed have a convention - the current ones for relations
> seem to not be theory based. I'd like to propose that the principle is
> that when reading a r b, we get an english sentence, which is what
> motivates the verb "is". In my version I also included alternative
> terms, with the verb, and without verb but with underscores instead of
> spaces.
In theory, this would be my favorite, although it does not always
work, e.g. "has-part"
On the other hand, we have the well-established relation names in RO.
How important is downward compatibility?
- Stefan
Alan Ruttenberg
On Jan 9, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Stefan Schulz <stefan...@medunigraz.at> wrote:
> Dear Chris and Alan,
>>>
>>> I would vote for always naming the inverse.
>>>
> I second
>
>>> On the subject of names, what naming convention are we using? I favour sticking with the conventional 'quality of', 'part of' etc in contrast to "is part of" etc
>>
>> We should indeed have a convention - the current ones for relations
>> seem to not be theory based. I'd like to propose that the principle is
>> that when reading a r b, we get an english sentence, which is what
>> motivates the verb "is". In my version I also included alternative
>> terms, with the verb, and without verb but with underscores instead of
>> spaces.
>
> In theory, this would be my favorite, although it does not always
> work, e.g. "has-part"
Why does has part not work? "has" is a verb.
> On the other hand, we have the well-established relation names in RO.
> How important is downward compatibility?
We can have backwards compatibility by having the old names be alternative terms.
Stefan Schulz
> Why does has part not work? "has" is a verb.
>
"The hand 'has part' a thumb" is bad English,
"The hand 'has' a thumb as 'part'" would be correct, but it splits the
relational expression.
- Stefan
Alan Ruttenberg
<stefan...@medunigraz.at> wrote:
>>
>> Why does has part not work? "has" is a verb.
>>
> But
> "The hand 'has part' a thumb" is bad English,
> "The hand 'has' a thumb as 'part'" would be correct, but it splits the
> relational expression.
Ah. Could also use "has, as part".
-Alan