Closed jclerman closed 1 year ago
The range for contained in
is
Whereas, the range for located in
is
So, it seems that located in
should be a subproperty of contained in
.
I do not understand why located in
excludes spatial regions in its range. Perhaps located in
is meant to be reserved for cased where a material entity bounds the spatial region (in some sense). I'm only speculating here. Maybe one of the RO gurus (e.g., @cmungall @balhoff @dosumis ) can shed more light on this.
Ah, I somehow hadn't noticed the domain & range for located in
. Something's a bit odd about it (but maybe that's in deference to the reasoners in common use) since technically, the 2nd element of the range-intersection (independent continuant
) is redundant.
I understand that it might not be acceptable for located in
to be a subproperty of contained in
, since located in
is marked as transitive, but contained in
is not. Also, perhaps more to the point, the textual definition of the range of contained in
seems narrower than the one for located in
.
My original question was rooted in my understanding based on the textual definitions of the two properties. Paraphrasing:
contained in
is a relationship between material and immaterial continuants (this is already in conflict with the asserted OWL range independent continuant
- so it'd be nice to get those into alignment if possible). Examples include physical things that are related to immaterial spaces ("lung in thoracic cavity", etc) and so this is stipulated not to be a transitive relation (though with correct domain & range criteria, that stipulation should be unnecessary, I think).located in
appears, based on textual description, to be broader than contained in
- it's just any two independent continuants, one of which is entirely "within" the other. That seems (to me) to be true of any contained in
relation - thus my suggestion.the 2nd element of the range-intersection (independent continuant) is redundant.
Yes. It is redundant. I don't know why it is there.
it might not be acceptable for located in to be a subproperty of contained in, since located in is marked as transitive, but contained in is not
Nice catch! I didn't notice that. This raises the question (to me at least) as to why contained in
isn't defined as transitive. Seems to make sense that if X contained in
Y and Y contained in
Z, then X contained in
Z. However, the reason for creating the relation may involve a use case for which transitivity doesn't apply. I don't know the history of the relation.
contained in is a relationship between material and immaterial continuants
Yes. The domain of contained in
is more restrictive (material entity
) than the domain of located in
, which incudes immaterial entity
(such as site
) sans spatial region
.
However the range of contained in
is less restrictive than the range located in
(this is already in conflict with the asserted OWL range independent continuant ...)
Sorry ... not following you here. A spatial region
is a type of immaterial entity
(i.e., a type of immaterial continuant).
located in appears, based on textual description, to be broader than contained in ...
Linguistically, this seems to be the case. Perhaps this is good reason for contained in
to be a subproperty of located in
.
Can others more familiar with the history of the contained in
relation weigh in?
This comes from the bfo reference guide. I do not think SR is a useful class and I do not think we should have unusual complex expressions as ranges or domains
The solution here is a simple range plus an additional complementof axiom to exclude SR
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 5:46 AM Bill Duncan @.***> wrote:
The range for contained in is [image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3186638/224330142-8772bf99-ff54-48b0-8432-1d151d7abe7c.png
Whereas, the range for located in is [image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3186638/224330015-9d5fe53d-f7d9-4c42-8ec6-c014e4a52943.png
So, it seems that located in should be a subproperty of contained in.
I do not understand why located in excludes spatial regions in its range. Perhaps located in is meant to be reserved for cased where a material entity bounds the spatial region (in some sense). I'm only speculating here. Maybe one of the RO gurus (e.g., @cmungall https://github.com/cmungall @balhoff https://github.com/balhoff @dosumis https://github.com/dosumis ) can shed more light on this.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/693#issuecomment-1463825774, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOJZB3VSEQEMWMX7RFDW3MWCZANCNFSM6AAAAAAVVYRBE4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
I should have been more clear in my original issue-description, I think.
As noted, it seems from the textual description of located in
and contained in
that the former is broader than the latter, and that it would therefore be convenient for contained in
to be modeled as a sub-property of located in
. But that's based on an implicit assumption on my part, which may be incorrect. To wit:
located in
The definition
annotation for located in
is:
a relation between two independent continuants, the target and the location, in which the target is entirely within the location
So, it sounds like the OWL range & domain should both be independent continuant
. spatial region
is excluded in the current OWL range & domain - but I don't see an explanation for that in the above definition, nor is it obvious what modeling benefit that exclusion confers.
contained in
The definition
annotation for contained in
begins:
Containment obtains in each case between material and immaterial continuants, for instance: lung contained_in thoracic cavity; bladder contained_in pelvic cavity. Hence containment is not a transitive relation.
To me, it sounds like that should translate to an OWL domain & range of material entity
and immaterial entity
, respectively. The currently modeled range for contained in
is independent continuant
, which is too broad given the textual description (that's what I meant above, when I said the OWL range was "in conflict" with the textual definition).
So, that's what led to my original question. If the OWL range and domain of the two properties were to be updated to what it sounds like their textual descriptions describe, located in
could at least possibly be a super-property of contained in
, and that would make for a slightly simpler more elegant model (IMO) - since it does seem natural that things that are "contained" in something are also "located" in it (though not necessarily vice-versa).
Thanks @wdduncan, happy to! I should be able to join for the first 30 minutes; not sure how long those meetings usually go. I'll look at the minutes doc tonight or tomorrow.
UPDATE: I glanced at the minutes-doc; I've nothing to add past what's there and what's already in this thread (particularly my March 12 explanation.
Looks likely that this issue will come up sometime after the first 30 min, but I'll plan to Zoom in to the mtg, just in case. Looking forward.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend the mtg today.
@jclerman The next meeting is on 2023-04-25 (9am PT, 12pm ET, 6pm CET).
There are some questions in the agenda for the next ro meeting, I will copy them here and answer here, to keep things in one place:
Why is contained in not transitive? Is there a history to this we need to be aware of?
See the editor note for this property:
"_Containment obtains in each case between material and immaterial continuants, for instance: lung contained_in thoracic cavity; bladder containedin pelvic cavity. Hence containment is not a transitive relation."
However, confusingly, the range of this relation in RO is less restrictive, as is IC.
In order to make this work, the range of located in would need to be changed (I think). The range of contained in is independent continuant. The range of located in is independent continuant and not spatial region. I.e., the range of located in is more restrictive than contained in.
Yes, it would. But as I noted above, the range of located_in comes from BFO, and the BFO reference guide states
Also in BFO 2020 the range of the temporalized form of located_in in 'independent continuant' and (not ('spatial region'))
PROPOSAL
We should simply obsolete contained_in
We should leave located_in as-is.
"Containment obtains in each case between material and immaterial continuants, for instance: lung contained_in thoracic cavity; bladder contained_in pelvic cavity. Hence containment is not a transitive relation."
Thanks @cmungall I didn't catch that!
the range of located_in comes from BFO, and the BFO reference guide
Yes. I was well aware of that. I just don't understand the reasoning behind it :(
I agree with your proposals:
contained in
located in
as is
I didn't see this question mentioned in earlier issues, nor do I see it addressed in the descriptions of the respective properties, so:
As best I can tell,
contained_in
(RO:0001018) is a special case oflocated_in
(RO:0001025) - would it make sense to acknowledge that by making the former a sub-property of the latter?I'm trying to decide how best to use these in an ontology I'm developing, and insight on this question would be helpful.