each time i've had to use BFO it has been because i had to use CCO (which descends from BFO).
CCO is situated conceptually near where gist is conceptually.
you can see how big the conceptual leaps (from gist to BFO) are in this repo:
gist:Intention subclassof bfo:continuant.
whereas if we did something like this:
gist:Intention subclassof cco:DirectiveInformationContentEntity
that is saying something with more specificity.
gist:Intention has subclasses like Function and Specification and cco:DirectiveInformationContentEntity has subclasses like ArtifactFunctionSpecification, Objective, Plan -- so their sublasses are quite similar.
also i think CCO is becoming the defacto BFO descended mid level ontology.
justin2004
commented
5 hours ago
each time i've had to use BFO it has been because i had to use CCO (which descends from BFO).
CCO is situated conceptually near where gist is conceptually.
you can see how big the conceptual leaps (from gist to BFO) are in this repo: gist:Intention subclassof bfo:continuant.
whereas if we did something like this: gist:Intention subclassof cco:DirectiveInformationContentEntity that is saying something with more specificity.
gist:Intention has subclasses like Function and Specification and cco:DirectiveInformationContentEntity has subclasses like ArtifactFunctionSpecification, Objective, Plan -- so their sublasses are quite similar.
also i think CCO is becoming the defacto BFO descended mid level ontology.