search

ontohgis / ontology

0 stars 1 forks source link

The problem of two types of subclasses in admin units #40

Closed bszady closed 8 months ago

bszady commented 8 months ago

The problem of two types of subclasses. This task is related to the issue 38. Clarify whether it is correct to maintain two types of subclasses for administrative unit types.

Situation 1: concerns the classical subordination: e.g. municipality, county, province or parish, decanate, archdeaconry, diocese. A lower-order unit is lower in the hierarchy than a higher-order unit. It is expressed in the ontology by the syntax "SubClass of 'forms part of' some [superior unit]", e.g. Kreis is part of Regierungsbezirk

Code:

ontohgis:administrative_type_39 a owl:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf ontohgis:object_3014 , [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P46i_forms_part_of ; owl:someValuesFrom ontohgis:administrative_type_42 ; ] ; rdfs:label "Kreis (Königreich Preußen (1806-1919))"@de , "district (The Kingdom of Prussia (1806-1919))"@en , "district (The Kingdom of Prussia (1806-1919))"@en ; http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#altLabel "county"@en ; ontohgis:isDefinedByEntity ontohgis:administrative_system_7 ; ontohgis:isSymbolisedByMeansOf ontohgis:map_symbol_30 ; ontohgis:seeAlsoIRI "http://gov.genealogy.net/types.owl#32" , "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q106658" ; .

Situation 2: There is also a different kind of dependency in the ontology, e.g. a district (Kreis) (general category) includes an urban district (Stadtkreis) and a rural district (Landkreis), which are more types of districts within the parent category. The whole area was covered by urban and rural districts as units of the same level. I have a doubt whether the urban district and the rural district are subclasses or just two types in this single level class.

Code: ontohgis:administrative_type_40 a owl:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf ontohgis:administrative_type_39 ; rdfs:label "Landkreis"@de , "rural district (The Kingdom of Prussia (1806-1919))"@de , "rural district (The Kingdom of Prussia (1806-1919))"@en ; ontohgis:isDefinedByEntity ontohgis:administrative_system_7 ; ontohgis:isSymbolisedByMeansOf ontohgis:map_symbol_30 ; ontohgis:seeAlsoIRI "http://gov.genealogy.net/types.owl#32" , "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q106658" ; .

ontohgis:administrative_type_41 a owl:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf ontohgis:administrative_type_39 ; rdfs:label "Stadtkreis"@de , "urban district (The Kingdom of Prussia (1806-1919))"@de , "urban district (The Kingdom of Prussia (1806-1919))"@en ; rdfs:comment "Equivalent to a land district but no longer divided into smaller aldermanships"@en ; ontohgis:isDefinedByEntity ontohgis:administrative_system_7 ; ontohgis:isSymbolisedByMeansOf ontohgis:map_symbol_30 ; ontohgis:seeAlsoIRI "http://gov.genealogy.net/types.owl#32" ; .

mereolog commented 8 months ago

I am not sure what the issue here is, but looking at the labels of administrative_type_41 and administrative_type_40 I do not see any modelling error. The ontology now says (implicitly) that a district can be either in a rural area or in an urban area - this looks correct to me, but this is a layman's point of view and all such decisions should be made by a domain expert.

bszady commented 8 months ago

I am closing this issue because the essence of the problem is in the issue 38