On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Cam Webb wrote:
We can also employ the OBO relational ontology (ro) to indicate that a fruit is ro:part_of the particular space-time Occurrence of an Individual (this might require a bit more discussion!).
I don't think you can do that actually, given the definition of the relation [1]. I.e., to me the definition sounds like it is true meristic parthood that is meant here (and for which it is applied in the uses that I have seen). The fruit has some role in Occurrence, but isn't a part of it in the sense of meristics, don't you think?
Also, the quantification doesn't match: If A ro:part_of B, then all instances of A part_of some instance of B. Obviously, there are some fruits that haven't been recorded in an occurrence. Unless you equate Occurrence to the fact that a particular instance exists, whether someone has recorded it in an observation or not. That would be a trivial assertion though and I don't think is the purpose of dwc:Occurrence, is it?
-hilmar
[1] http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:part_of