BFO-ontology / BFO

BFO repository including source code and latest documents
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
255 stars 42 forks source link

Using 'Domain' and 'Range' to describe ternary temporal relations is confusing or wrong #147

Open zhengj2007 opened 9 years ago

zhengj2007 commented 9 years ago

From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on February 03, 2013 18:05:59

We have many parts of the reference that are of the following sort:

3.1.1 The continuant_part_of relation ELUCIDATION: b continuant_part_of c at t =Def. b is a part of c at t & t is a temporal region & b and c are continuants. [002-001] DOMAIN: continuant RANGE: continuant (The range for ‘t’ (as in all cases throughout this document unless otherwise specified) is: temporal region.)

I understand domain and range of a function, or of a binary relation. Are these even defined for ternary relations? If so, what is the definition of Domain and Range?

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=147

zhengj2007 commented 9 years ago

From cmung...@gmail.com on February 03, 2013 15:48:05

This should all be in the clif for BFO.

Some of the work I did on formalizing type-type relations could be salvaged here. See https://obo.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/obo/obolog/trunk/obolog.kif Relevant section:

{{{ (metarelation range) (text_definition range "Constrains relations such that the object (second argument) of the relation only holds between instances of the specified type")

;; @Axiom: domain constraints on time-indexed relations (=> (and (domain ?rel ?D) (?rel ?i1 ?i2 ?t)) (instance_of ?i2 ?D ?t)) ;; @Axiom: domain constraints on atemporal relations (=> (and (domain ?rel ?D) (?rel ?i1 ?i2)) (instance_of ?i2 ?D))

}}}

Note that you need to do a similar thing for transitivity.