[tdwg-content] practical details of recording a determination What is an Occurrence?
cwebb at oeb.harvard.edu
Mon Oct 25 10:45:41 CEST 2010
Thanks for this insight. I have to admit to no prior experience of
mereology, but the desire to find a solution to how to semantically encode
morphological observations in a fashion which many can agree upon prods me
to reply. Sorry if I am way in out of my depth and it shows!
>> 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
> . 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?
If we consider the occurrence to be the intersection of the individual
with an (observation) event in a particular space and time (e.g., tzxy0),
I think a fruit_txyz0 is indeed part of plant_txyz0, fulfilling the
ro:part_of definition of:
``For continuants: C part_of C' if and only if: given any c that
instantiates C at a time t, there is some c' such that c' instantiates
C' at time t, and c *part_of* c' at t.''
The alternative to making the fruit a part of the dwc:Occurrence is to
make it a part_of the sernec:Individual, which could then be observed via
the OBOE terms, at a particular place and time (although strangely there
seems to be no date/time observation terms in OBOE). This second
alternative would be less satisfying though, given that dwc:Occurrences
have already been specified to include Observations. Maybe using
dcterms:isPartOf would be OK, since it is less precisely defined?
> 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.
I agree with this, but this must surely be a generic issue within the
whole OBO/organismal annotation world - often a phenotype must be recorded
for c, which is part_of c', without having considered every instance of C.
This is clearly an issue to take up with the TDWG Observations WG, and
I'll post to the new post-Wood's Hole list shortly. If any of you have
any suggestions for how to progress with this, I'd appreciate them.
More information about the tdwg-content