Provide natural language definitions for classes in composition.owl

[cparedis]

[schneidert]

I assume this issue refers to the owl file in under 'examples/composition.owl'. Will do for those classes that make sense to be in an ontology. Though this will be a challenge since the intent of this ontology in not clear to me.

[schneidert]

After reviewing the 'examples/composition.owl' I will not be able to provide natural language definitions for the classes in this file: They don't make sense for many reasons.

[cparedis]

Ok. maybe you can explain what the "many reasons" are so that we can figure out how to improve on what we started from. Or, you could maybe propose the OWL constructs that would make sense from the perspective of an ontologist...
I hope we can adopt the mindset of: "what can I do to help the team progress towards its goals?"

[schneidert]

Here's a start on 'reasons'.

There is both an scope and intent associated with the file 'examples/composition.owl'. I assume the scope in systems engineering. The intent is not clear.

'Aspect': The notion of aspect, "a particular part or feature of something" or " a particular way in which something may be considered", is certainly a common notion used everyday for a variety of reasons. However, 'aspect' is a dependent notion: 'aspect' of what? Or when. For whom?
What is/was the intended use of this notion?

'Concept': The notion of 'Concept' would be considered as 'Abstract' in DOLCE. But it is asserted that anything that is classified as a 'Component' must be a 'Concept'. This doesn't make sense from a common understanding of the two terms and, relative to either DOLCE or BFO, they are two very different types of 'things'.