Minor issue with definition of ‘located in’

[gregfowlerphd]

Describe the bug

The definition reads:

b located in c =Def b is an independent continuant & c is an independent & neither is a spatial region & there is some time t such that the spatial region which b occupies at t is continuant part of the spatial region which c occupies at t

Notice that the word ‘continuant’ is missing after the second instance of ‘independent’.

Expected behavior

I believe 'continuant' should be added to the definition at the relevant place.

[alanruttenberg]

Agreed, but it seems to be a bug only in the out-of-sync BFO OWL. In the original source the definition is

b located in c at t =Def. b and c are independent continuants and not spatial regions, and the spatial region which b occupies at t is a (proper or improper) continuant part of the spatial region which c occupies at t