Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 13 Jan 2012 at 7:16
As far as I understand, in the spirit of BFO, 'blood pressure of 110/70' is a
subtype of 'blood pressure'. There is no distinction between qualities and
their values (such as quatity regions in DOLCE)
- Stefan
Original comment by steschu@gmail.com
on 16 Jan 2012 at 9:37
there is an odd situation, in that there is no differentia to explicate the
difference between
blood pressure of 110/70 and
blood pressure of 120/80.
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 16 Jan 2012 at 9:45
I think there will need to be some kind of mechanism to allow distnguishing
determinables from determinants, and to allow the differentia to be specified.
Some experience:
PATO was originally DOLCE-like, with separate hierarchies for attributes and
values. We made it BFO-like in around 2007. This was a bit controversial, and
the move was unpopular with a lot of users. We ended up allowing the
distinction via the back door - we created to obo-subsets, one for attributes,
one for values. These are non-logical annotation assertions in the OWL. This
placated most, but it's an odd situation having non-logical axioms for
something that we expect to be logical.
Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com
on 16 Jan 2012 at 10:26
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 7 May 2012 at 2:44
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 8 May 2012 at 4:13
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 8 May 2012 at 4:37
Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com
on 17 Apr 2013 at 3:40
My assumption has been that determinables will indeed be distinguished
logically from determinates. Tentatively:
1. if determinable D inheres in bearer B at t, then determinable D inheres in B
at all times at which B exists.
1. This does not hold for determinates.
Are there counterexamples to 1.
An alternative, or supplementary, approach might be:
If D is a determinable, then there are qualities D1, D2 such that D1 is_a D and
D2 is_a D, and for some bearer B, there are distinct times t1 and t2, such D1
inheres in B at t1 and D2 inheres in B at D2
Original comment by ifo...@gmail.com
on 1 May 2013 at 4:54
"Are there counterexamples to 1."
This depends on what BFO says about values of zero.
If we have a determinable Q, and Q inheres in B at t with some magnitude or
value "11" on some scale, and Q inheres in B at t with value "0", is there
really a Q present, or is the bearer left bereft of any Q?
It's hard to come up with examples of zero values. E.g. we may talk of an
object becoming weightless in deep space, but there is some weight with a very
low value.
But BFO should have some documented position. Either it's possible for 1. above
to be contradicted by virtue of values becoming zero OR determinables are still
present when their value is zero OR physics is such that no true determinable
can take on a zero value.
Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com
on 1 May 2013 at 5:15
"1. if determinable D inheres in bearer B at t, then determinable D inheres in
B at all times at which B exists."
This doesn't distinguish determinable versus determinate. It distinguishes
those quality types which are rigid (or "essential". A counterexample is the
charge of an electron, which satisfies the above but which is not determinable.
"If D is a determinable, then there are qualities D1, D2 such that D1 is_a D
and D2 is_a D, and for some bearer B, there are distinct times t1 and t2, such
D1 inheres in B at t1 and D2 inheres in B at D2"
This formulation mixes use of the symbols D1,D2 as both universals and
particulars.
Universal: "there are qualities D1, D2 such that D1 is_a D and D2 is_a D"
Particular: "D1 inheres in B at t1 and D2 inheres in B at D2"
So can not be evaluated.
I don't believe the distinction can be made at the level of particulars. What
is the case, however, is that
if q instantiates D at t1 and D is a determinable quality type, then there is
some subtype of D' of D that is a determinate quality type and q instantiates
D' at t.
--
Neither solves the question of how to represent these in OWL, nor answers the
question of what the differentia between the 'type blood pressure of 110/70',
and it's superclass 'blood pressure'
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 13 May 2013 at 2:39
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 25 Jul 2007 at 3:50