Open cmungall opened 1 year ago
@cmungall For (3), are proposing that BFO classes such as continuant
and occurrent
be included in COB?
@wdduncan
For 3, the proposal would not be to formally include them in COB, but we would have a release artefact that includes BFO classes above the shoreline like continuant and occurrent (i.e. superclasses of existing COB-BFO equivalents, which corresponds to domains and ranges in ro-core)
What do we do here?
1 is highly unsatisfactory, the way RO is structured we would lose a lot of massively useful QC
2 is formally an overreach, since BFO doesn't (AFAIK) include closure axioms justifying this. It also means that we lose QC for EL++ (though I think Elk can handle UnionOf?)
To properly implement 3 we may need to make a BFO subset that is the above the shoreline cut