Relation rst#definition (pm#description_content/medium/container,pm#description_content/medium/container)  a logical relation should be used instead of this relation
  exclusion:  rst#circumstance  rst#solution  rst#elaboration  rst#cause  rst#effect  rst#comparison  rst#means  rst#condition  rst#otherwise  rst#interpretation  rst#restatement  rst#summary  rst#theme  rst#contrast
  supertype:  rst#subject_matter_rhetorical_relation (pm#description_content/medium/container,pm#description_content/medium/container)  connect to details for making a better description
     supertype:  pm#rhetorical_relation (pm#description_content/medium/container,pm#description_content/medium/container)  main sources: the Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) and the PENMAN ontology; DO NOT USE such fuzzy relations: instead, use relations from/to situations!
        supertype:  pm#relation_from_description_content/medium/container (pm#description_content/medium/container,*)
           supertype:  pm#relation_from/to_thing_of_common_kind (*)  this type permits to categorize relations according to their signatures and hence offers (i) a concise way to set essential exclusion relations, and (ii) a systematic and easy-to-follow categorization
              >part of:  pm#relation__related_thing__relatedthing___related_with  type for any relation (unary, binary, ..., *-ary) and instance of pm#relation_type
  supertype:  pm#definition (?,pm#description_content/medium/container)  see also #definition
     supertype:  rdfs#is_defined_by (?,pm#entity)  in WebKB, pm#definition SHOULD BE USED INSTEAD
        supertype:  rdfs#see_also__seealso (?,pm#entity)
           supertype:  sumo#refers (?,?)  the 1st argument mentions or includes a reference to the 2nd argument, e.g., an article whose topic is a recent change in the price of oil may refer to many other things, e.g., the general state of the economy, the weather in California, the prospect of global warming, the options for alternative energy sources, the stock prices of various oil companies, etc.
              supertype:  dc#Relation (?,?)  to specify a reference to a related resource; in WebKB, pm#relation or MORE PRECISE RELATION TYPES SHOULD BE USED INSTEAD
                 supertype:  pm#binary_relation (?,?)  in WebKB, most relation types are binary and some have a variable number of arguments (as in KIF), hence this type is currently only specialized by types that I do not want to see as direct subtypes of pm#relation
                    supertype:  pm#relation_with_particular_property (*)  this rather fuzzy type permits to group categorization schemes less common than those covered by the previous sibling categories
                       >part of:  pm#relation__related_thing__relatedthing___related_with  type for any relation (unary, binary, ..., *-ary) and instance of pm#relation_type
     supertype:  pm#annotation (?,pm#description_content/medium/container)
        supertype:  pm#topic (?,pm#entity)
           supertype:  dc#Description (?,pm#entity)  to specify an account of the content of a resource; in WebKB, pm#topic or pmdescr SHOULD BE USED INSTEAD
              supertype:  pm#binary_relation (?,?)  in WebKB, most relation types are binary and some have a variable number of arguments (as in KIF), hence this type is currently only specialized by types that I do not want to see as direct subtypes of pm#relation