The best practice to just add a new definition to a term from an existing ontology is to import that ontology and use annotations to add a comment (using rdfs:comment) or definition (using iao:IAO_0000115 which is term "definition") to the term we are interested to update and use.
The current owl file redefines the following upper ontology terms as KOIO terms just to add new definition to each one:
entity (BFO) -> continuant (BFO) -> independent continuant (BFO) -> material entity (BFO)
Note: The item on the right of the arrow is the 'SubClass Of' the item on the left.
The "artifact" and "information artifact" in the above hierarchy are KOIO terms, which are defined based on IAO, but they do not exist in IAO. The property in their definition is used to indicate that the broader context or the thematic scope of the IAO ontology encompasses their concept. This is a way to link the class to a source that is thematically relevant, even if it doesn't contain a direct, explicit definition. So overall conclusion is that these two terms are KOIO terms and we do not need to change them.
The Work:
Import the IAO ontology which will import the following terms needed from BFO:
entity (BFO) -> continuant (BFO) -> independent continuant (BFO) -> material entity (BFO).
Add new definitions to these terms using iao:IAO_0000115
This will give us the hierarchy as
entity (BFO) -> continuant (BFO) -> independent continuant (BFO) -> material entity (BFO) -> artifact (KOIO) -> information artifact (KOIO)
Object Properties
Our current ontology defines hasPart and isPartOf as KOIO terms. But these terms exist under BFO as has part (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000051) and part of (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000050) in BFO ontology. KOIO uses the same definition as what is used in BFO for these terms and it refers to BFO ontology defining their concept. There is no point of recreating these terms in KOIO since we are not changing them so we can just use them imported from BFO.
The Work:
Import the IAO ontology needed for other part of the ontology will import the BFO object properties as well:
move sub properties of each one of hasPart and isPartOf to BFO:has part and BFO: part of.
Classes
The best practice to just add a new definition to a term from an existing ontology is to import that ontology and use annotations to add a comment (using rdfs:comment) or definition (using iao:IAO_0000115 which is term "definition") to the term we are interested to update and use.
The current owl file redefines the following upper ontology terms as KOIO terms just to add new definition to each one: entity (BFO) -> continuant (BFO) -> independent continuant (BFO) -> material entity (BFO)
Note: The item on the right of the arrow is the 'SubClass Of' the item on the left.
The "artifact" and "information artifact" in the above hierarchy are KOIO terms, which are defined based on IAO, but they do not exist in IAO. The property in their definition is used to indicate that the broader context or the thematic scope of the IAO ontology encompasses their concept. This is a way to link the class to a source that is thematically relevant, even if it doesn't contain a direct, explicit definition. So overall conclusion is that these two terms are KOIO terms and we do not need to change them.
The Work:
This will give us the hierarchy as entity (BFO) -> continuant (BFO) -> independent continuant (BFO) -> material entity (BFO) -> artifact (KOIO) -> information artifact (KOIO)
Object Properties
Our current ontology defines hasPart and isPartOf as KOIO terms. But these terms exist under BFO as has part (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000051) and part of (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000050) in BFO ontology. KOIO uses the same definition as what is used in BFO for these terms and it refers to BFO ontology defining their concept. There is no point of recreating these terms in KOIO since we are not changing them so we can just use them imported from BFO.
The Work: