### Author Topic: Abstraction of the Portion_of Meronymy  (Read 1364 times)

#### jeshaw2

• EA User
• Posts: 701
• Karma: +0/-0
• I'm a Singleton, what pattern are you?
##### Abstraction of the Portion_of Meronymy
« on: October 05, 2005, 07:21:32 am »
What would you consider to be a good abstraction of the Portion_of Meronymy?

This is another thread in my concers about abstractions of the six types of meronymy.  The first thread of this series is the Part_of Meronymy .  The introductory and Background portions of that thread should be reviewed by readers new to this series.  Again, this is a request for comments.

Now to the Abstraction...A work in progress.

Portion / mass
We have in this class for example: slice/bread, centimeter/meter. This sub relation is often called a mereology.
• There is a complete similarity between the portions and between portions and the mass.
• Limits between portions are arbitrary and parts do not have any specific function a priori with respect to the whole.
• Portions belong to only one mass at a time, but are interchangeable with identical portions from identical masses.
• Division of a previously undivided mass into portions may mutate it into a new divided form. (e.g.;’ Bread Loaf’ vs ‘Cut Bread Loaf’) [Policy]
• Parts are exclusively owned by the mass.
• Portions are distinct, but they may not have distinctly unique names without being indexed.   E.g.; Slice[n].  [Policy]
• Portions are not aware of each other.
• Portions need to know of which mass they are a portion.
• Portions may not self-remove themselves from the mass.
• Destruction of the mass destroys the portions.
• Destruction of a portion reduces the mass by a fraction. [Policy]
• Destruction of a last remaining portion destroys the mass.
• In some domains, it is possible to reconstitute the mass from the sum of its portions. [Policy]

Notation: An Association stereotyped as <<portionOf>>.  Association ends may be adorned with navigation arrowheads and ownership diamonds.  A link name (formed by the conjunction of two verbs, or verb phrases, separated by a slash) assists the reader in verbalizing the association from either of its ends. Serious consideration should be given to the use of an Association Class to provide information about, and methods to manage, the nature of the association.
Verbal Use Cases aren't worth the paper they are written upon.

#### SF_lt

• EA User
• Posts: 216
• Karma: +1/-0
• The Truth Is Out There
##### Re: Abstraction of the Portion_of Meronymy
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2005, 07:41:40 am »
Quote
Portion / mass
We have in this class for example: slice/bread, centimeter/meter. This sub relation is often called a mereology.
&#8226; There is a complete similarity between the portions and between portions and the mass.

It seems, that this meronymy type is more physical than others. At least description should be more abstract (as UML tries to be), taken away from the mass, as the physical unit. Also word mass shouldn't be here - if so, it needs a separate description

Right now I don't like existing description
registertm everything to SparX

#### jeshaw2

• EA User
• Posts: 701
• Karma: +0/-0
• I'm a Singleton, what pattern are you?
##### Re: Abstraction of the Portion_of Meronymy
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2005, 07:34:52 pm »
The description you quoted in your post comes from the original reference that I have for this sub relation.  Here is the full citation: Winston M.E. - R. Chaffin - D.J. Hermann (1987) A taxonomy of part-whole relations In Cognitive Science, 11. Norwood NJ: Ablex Publ. Corp.: 417-444, 1987.

Can you suggest an alternative for Mass?  I've tried several words but always ended up returning to Mass.

Verbal Use Cases aren't worth the paper they are written upon.

#### jeshaw2

• EA User
• Posts: 701
• Karma: +0/-0
• I'm a Singleton, what pattern are you?
##### Re: Abstraction of the Portion_of Meronymy
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2005, 05:34:01 pm »
Quote

It seems, that this meronymy type is more physical than others. At least description should be more abstract (as UML tries to be), taken away from the mass, as the physical unit. Also word mass shouldn't be here - if so, it needs a separate description

Right now I don't like existing description

This comment could, perhaps, be applied to all of the meronymic relations I've posted.  As an alternative that moves us to the more abstract we could use the terms Holonym to represent the cognitive whole and meronym to represent the part.  Thus we would have:

The meronym is a portionOf the Holonym.
The meronym is a substanceOf the Holonym.
The meronym is a subActivityOF the Holonym.
And so on....

What say you all?   Is this an improvement or not?  I kinda like this.
Verbal Use Cases aren't worth the paper they are written upon.

#### jhaydt

• EA Novice
• Posts: 11
• Karma: +0/-0
• things that make ya go hmmmm
##### Re: Abstraction of the Portion_of Meronymy
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2006, 11:23:28 am »
Jim,
I'm not educated on any of this stuff, but I think that the term mass could be replaced with "whole".  Is there an issue there?

Cheers,
Jeff
According to Webster's 1828 dictionary, badgers make great bacon...