jpalmeida
commented
2 months ago About 1, indeed, we need to adjust the documentation.
The documentation for gufo:Type currently reads:
An entity that may be instantiated by (or predicated over) other entities. Types encompass what we often call "sorts", "kinds", "categories", etc.
Examples include the kind "Person", the event type "Earthquake", and the abstract individual type "NaturalNumber". Relations, such as "marriedTo" and "olderThan", are also considered as types.
Instances of gufo:Type are classes, and should specialize the taxonomy of individuals of gUFO.
The last sentence quoted should better be removed, and the particularities treated in subclasses of gufo:Type: gufo:AbstractIndividualType, gufo:ConcreteIndividualType and gufo:RelationshipType.
About 2, I agree, the domain as is is currently under constrained.
I have two questions about the gufo:RelationshipType:
According to the gufo-documentation "instances of gufo:Type are classes, and should specialize the taxonomy of individuals in gUFO". But how about the Relationshiptypes? Instances of these are properties instead of classes and don't specialize the taxonomy of individuals.
The domain of gufo:categorizes is (gufo:Type and not(gufo:AbstractIndividualType) and not(gufo:ConcreteIndividualType)). Why isn't gufo:RelationshipType excluded in the domain?