Submissions:Co-participation
From Odp
(Difference between revisions)
(New page: {{Include Image}} {{Content OP Proposal Template |SubmittedBy=User:AldoGangemi |Name=Co-participation |Intent=To represent two objects that both participate in a same event. |Domain=Genera...) |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Name=Co-participation | |Name=Co-participation | ||
|Intent=To represent two objects that both participate in a same event. | |Intent=To represent two objects that both participate in a same event. | ||
- | |Domain=General | + | |Domain=Community:General |
|CompetencyQuestion=What objects participate in a same event?, | |CompetencyQuestion=What objects participate in a same event?, | ||
Who is involved with whom in something? | Who is involved with whom in something? |
Revision as of 18:21, 30 May 2008
General description
Name: | Co-participation |
---|---|
Submitted by: | User:AldoGangemi |
Also Known As: | |
Intent: | To represent two objects that both participate in a same event. |
Domains: | |
Competency Questions: |
|
Solution description: | |
Reusable OWL Building Block: | http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/coparticipation.owl (904) |
Consequences: | Any two objects, agents, etc. participating in a same event, even partly or for some limited time, can be related. The pattern provides room for representing participation in that event as well, by importing the Submissions:Participation pattern.
This patterns does not allow to express the complete relation between an event and its participants: this has to be added manually. |
Scenarios: | Mike and Greta had a great fun together. |
Known Uses: | |
Web References: | |
Other References: | |
Examples (OWL files): | |
Extracted From: | |
Reengineered From: | |
Has Components: | |
Specialization Of: | |
Related CPs: |
Elements
The Co-participation Content OP locally defines the following ontology elements:
coparticipatesWith (owl:ObjectProperty) A symmetric binary relation between objects. It is intedned to represent coparticipation in same event, and such event and the related participation relations should be added separately.
Reviews
Reviews about Co-participation
There is no review about this proposal. This revision (revision ID 1896) takes in account the reviews: none
Other info at evaluation tab