zhengj2007
commented
9 years ago From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on March 07, 2013 13:56:28
BFO has a ternary has disposition relation, rather than a binary has disposition relation. A the current state of development of BFO 2 OWL, we introduce the binary some time/all time relations. For these we currently give the BFO reference definition as the term definition, and differentiate the terms in an editor note which expresses the temporal qualification. e.g. "Alan Ruttenberg: This is a binary version of a ternary time-indexed, instance-level, relation. The BFO reading of the binary relation 'bearer of at all times@en' is: forall(t) exists_at(x,t) -> exists_at(y,t) and 'bearer of@en(x,y,t)'.:
This is a known issue and the accepted solution is that the binary some/all relation will be added to BFO reference, after which the definitions will be pulled from it as the other definitions are.
The same is true for other temporal relations.
--
The issue with has quality all/some is that in the reference, currently only one of each pair of inverse relations is given a definition. It is not a trivial transform to create a definition for an inverse, though we might try that. Better would be to include the definitions in the reference.
--
You are correct that has disposition at all times is a subproperty of has disposition at some time. That it doesn't is an omission. Thanks for pointing it out. The source looks correct
--has-d_st ---has-f_st ----has_f_at ---has-d_at
So there is a bug in owl generation that needs to be found.
Status: Accepted
From zhengj2...@gmail.com on March 07, 2013 15:22:15
'has disposition at some time' and 'has disposition at all time' with same textual definition. Same for 'has function' and 'has role'. 'has quality at all/some time' has no textual definition.
Another question, is 'has disposition at all time' is a subProperty of 'has disposition at some time'?
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=155