Reviews:CatherineRoussey about SimpleOrAggregated
From Odp
Review about Submissions:SimpleOrAggregated
Overall suggestion (score): 0 - needs major revision
is it a hasMember, hasPart, hasComponent property? maybe the aggregation can be replace by any of them... and does this property transitive or not?
Why do you thing that all the objects can be classified as a simple one or an aggregated one? First I would rather fixe a subClassOf relationship between ObjectByCardinality and Object... Depend of the point of view (the scale) an object can be classified as simple or not... An organ is a simple object or not? Organ is composed of cells and cell is composed of...
if an individual O has two aggregated Members O1 and O2 asserted in the ontology... Moreover if O1 is fixed as same as O2... what do you expect from the reasoner? What's happen if instead 02 is also an aggregatedMember of O1?If a whole is composed of two aggregatedMembers which are fixed as equivalent, the whole is still classified as a aggregatedObject. Is it what do you expect from the reasoner?
Moreover if the whole is classified as a simple Object and is composed of two objects that are equivalent to each other there are an unconsistency...
So I do no think that the reasoning about number of parts is possible with this pattern...Posted: 2010/9/10 Last modified: 2010/9/16
16-09-2010 CatherineRoussey says:
I have seen that the definition of a simple Object is an object with no aggregated Objects (no parts) so what is an object with only one aggregated Object? no an aggregated Object but not a simple Object... the ObjectBy Cardinality partition should be modified...