[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] ISO 15926 and BFO

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:00:16 +0100
Message-id: <>
At 11:51 AM 11/20/2005, you wrote:
>Dear Barry,
> > Uniquely, among existing
> > contributions, the BFO Relation Ontology allows the drawing of a
> > clear distinction between relations on the level of instances (e.g.
> > between your heart and your body) and relations on the level of types
> > (e.g. between the type human heart and the type human body).
>MW: Just for the record, ISO 15926 also supports this.
>Matthew West    (01)

ISO 15926 does indeed distinguish between relationships and classes 
of relationships:    (02)

A <relationship> is an <abstract_object> that indicates something 
that one thing has to do with another.    (03)

A <class_of_relationship> is a <class_of _abstract_object> whose 
members are members of <relationship>.    (04)

However, it does not provide an account of the distinction between 
relationships BETWEEN CLASSES (for example in general assertions such 
as: human heart PART_OF human body, capital city PART_OF country) and 
relationships BETWEEN INSTANCES (such as Matthew's heart part_of 
Matthew's body; London part_of England). As is shown in    (05)

http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46    (06)

these are formally two quite distinct sorts of relationships. And 
only if we provide an account of how they are connected one to the 
other can we understand how an ontology (which deals with 
relationships BETWEEN CLASSES) can be linked to the real world of oil 
rigs and generators.    (07)

BS     (08)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (09)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>