http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DOLCE-Lite#abstract
The main characteristic of abstract entities is that they do not have spatial nor temporal qualities, and they are not qualities themselves. The only class of abstract entities we consider in the present version of the upper ontology is that of quality regions (or simply regions). Quality spaces are special kinds of quality regions, being mereological sums of all the regions related to a certain quality type. The other examples of abstract entities (sets and facts) are only indicative.
Instances of dol:abstract can have the following properties:
| PROPERTY | TYPE | DESCRIPTION | RANGE |
|---|---|---|---|
| From class dol:particular | |||
| dol:atomic-part | owl:ObjectProperty | The part relation between a particular and an atom. | dol:particular |
| dol:atomic-part-of | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:particular | |
| dol:boundary | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:particular | |
| dol:boundary-of | owl:ObjectProperty | A boundary here is taken to be a part (mereological treatment). Consequently, in the case of endurants, (reified) boundaries are features. | dol:particular |
| dol:exact-location | owl:ObjectProperty | A location relation bounded to regions and defined analytically through the composition of inherence and q-location. This is the analytical version of 'generic location'. | dol:region |
| dol:generic-constituent | owl:ObjectProperty | 'Constituent' should depend on some layering of the ontology. For example, scientific granularities or ontological 'strata' are typical layerings. A constituent is a part belonging to a lower layer. Since layering is actually a partition of the ontology, constituents are not properly classified as parts, although this kinship can be intuitive for common sense. Example of specific constant constituents are the entities constituting a setting (a situation), whilethe entities constituting a collection are examples of generic constant constituents. | dol:particular |
| dol:generic-constituent-of | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:particular | |
| dol:generic-dependent | owl:ObjectProperty | The dependence on an individual of a given type at some time. This is traditionally a relation between particulars and universals, but this one states that x generically depends on y if a z different from y, but with the same properties, can be equivalently its depend-on.This is a temporally-indexed relation (embedded in this syntax). | dol:particular |
| dol:generic-location | owl:ObjectProperty | The most generic location relation, probably equivalent to more than one image schema in a cognitive system (e.g. containment for exact location, proximity for approximate location).This is meant to reason on generalized, common sense as well as formal locations, including naive localization, between any kinds of entities. Generic location is branched into 'exact' location, ranging on regions, and 'approximate' (naive) location, ranging on non-regions. | dol:particular |
| dol:generic-location-of | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:particular | |
| dol:generically-dependent-on | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:particular | |
| dol:has-quality | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:quality | |
| dol:has-t-quality | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:quality | |
| dol:identity-c | owl:ObjectProperty | Any pair of individuals are ontologically identical if they are identical to themselves. Reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. | dol:particular |
| dol:identity-n | owl:ObjectProperty | Any pair of individuals are notionally identical iff they instantiate all and only the same concepts. | dol:particular |
| dol:immediate-relation | owl:ObjectProperty | A relation that holds without additional mediating individuals. In logical terms, a non-composed relation. | dol:particular |
| dol:immediate-relation-i | owl:ObjectProperty | A relation that holds without additional mediating individuals. In logical terms, a non-composed relation. | dol:particular |
| dol:mediated-relation | owl:ObjectProperty | A relation that composes other relations. For example, a participation relation composed with a representation relation.Composed relation cannot be directly expressed in OWL-DL, then (at least some) compositions are expressed as class or restriction axioms. | dol:particular |
| dol:mediated-relation-i | owl:ObjectProperty | A relation that composes other relations. For example, a participation relation composed with a representation relation. Composed relation cannot be directly expressed in OWL-DL, then (at least some) compositions are expressed as class or restriction axioms. | dol:particular |
| dol:overlaps | owl:ObjectProperty | Mereological overlap: having a common part. | dol:particular |
| dol:part | owl:ObjectProperty | The most generic part relation, reflexive, asymmetric, and transitive. | dol:particular |
| dol:part-of | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:particular | |
| dol:partly-compresent | owl:ObjectProperty | A composed (mediated) relation used here to make relations 'temporary': by adding it as a superrelation, the effect is that the two related endurants cannot be present at all the same time intervals, but are compresent at least at some time interval (see related axiom).In FOL, the same constraint can be stated directly by coreference.This workaround can be used to index time of relations that involve reciprocal dependency, but it cannot be used in general with relations involving multiple strata of reality. For example, _about_ relation can be temporally indexed, without involving that the time of the information object overlaps with the time of the entity the information is about (but this works for e.g. the _realizes_ relation between information objects and entities whatsoever). The different temporal constraints of about vs. expresses probably derive from the dependency of aboutness from conception (to be about x, an information object should also express a description d that is satisfied by a situation including x, then temporal overlapping of _about_ is true in virtue of d). On the other hand, even conceives cannot be indexed in this way, because overlapping does not hold between the time og the conceiving agent, and the conceived description (or situation). | dol:particular |
| dol:proper-part | owl:ObjectProperty | The proper part relation: irreflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive. | dol:particular |
| dol:proper-part-of | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:particular | |
| dol:sibling-part | owl:ObjectProperty | Mereological sibling: having a common whole | dol:particular |
| dol:spatio-temporally-present-at | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:spatio-temporal-region | |
| dol:specific-constant-constituent | owl:ObjectProperty | 'Constituent' should depend on some layering of the ontology. For example, scientific granularities or ontological 'strata' are typical layerings. A constituent is a part belonging to a lower layer. Since layering is actually a partition of the ontology, constituents are not properly classified as parts, although this kinship can be intuitive for common sense. Example of specific constant constituents are the entities constituting a setting (a situation), whilethe entities constituting a collection are examples of generic constant constituents. | dol:particular |
| dol:specific-constant-constituent-of | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:particular | |
| dol:specific-constant-dependent | owl:ObjectProperty | The constant dependence between two individuals. Taken here as primitive. | dol:particular |
| dol:specifically-constantly-dependent-on | owl:ObjectProperty | dol:particular | |
| dol:strong-connection | owl:ObjectProperty | By strong connection here we mean a connection between two entities that share a boundary. | dol:particular |
| dol:weak-connection | owl:ObjectProperty | The basic connection, not requiring a common boundary. | dol:particular |
@prefix dol: <http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DOLCE-Lite#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
dol:abstract a owl:Class ;
rdfs:comment "The main characteristic of abstract entities is that they do not have spatial nor temporal qualities, and they are not qualities themselves. The only class of abstract entities we consider in the present version of the upper ontology is that of quality regions (or simply regions). Quality spaces are special kinds of quality regions, being mereological sums of all the regions related to a certain quality type. The other examples of abstract entities (sets and facts) are only indicative."^^xsd:string ;
rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ;
owl:allValuesFrom [ a owl:Class ;
owl:complementOf dol:temporal-location_q ] ;
owl:onProperty dol:has-quality ],
[ a owl:Restriction ;
owl:allValuesFrom [ a owl:Class ;
owl:complementOf dol:spatial-location_q ] ;
owl:onProperty dol:has-quality ],
dol:particular ;
owl:disjointWith dol:perdurant,
dol:quality .