search

zhengj2007 / bfo-export

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/bfo
0 stars 0 forks source link

immaterial parts and MaterialEntity #12

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hello,

This is not a problem with BFO as such, but something to bear in mind in
the presentation.

Objects and FiatObjectParts at least may (and possibly must) have
immaterial parts such as cavities, hollows and tunnels.  I'm not sure about
whether the space in between penguins in a huddle counts as an immaterial
part of that ObjectAggregate, but that ObjectAggregate definitely has
immaterial parts inside and on the surface of the penguins.

Calling the parent of these three MaterialEntity does make it sound as if
they don't include the immaterial parts.

Also, whereas process--result polysemy (examples: infection, distribution)
relates an occurrent and a continuant, figure--ground polysemy (examples:
door, gate, conduit, tunnel) relates the whole and an immaterial part in a
rather more complicated way.  I'm happy with the inside of a fireplace or a
blood vessel being a Site, but it seems less obvious that a door (in the
sense of walking through a door with a pout as opposed to walking through a
door with a crash and splintering wood) is a Site.

Where do immaterial parts that aren't Sites go?

Best wishes,
Colin.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by batchelorc@rsc.org on 17 Feb 2010 at 2:21

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
"Calling the parent of these three MaterialEntity does make it sound as if they 
don't include the immaterial 
parts."

I think the whole of a MaterialEntity must have material parts, so it's not 
that problematic to keep the same. 
We don't assert anywhere that all parts of material entities are material 
entities.

I don't know if Sites are intended to be a subtype of immaterial entity. I 
thought it should be considered a 
synonym, but if Barry disagrees then we need to add immaterial entity as a 
parent to it.

(response to other parts of your comment deliberately blank - don't have time 
now)

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 17 Feb 2010 at 3:44

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Alan Ruttenberg says:

> We don't assert anywhere that all parts of material entities are material 
entities.

True.  I think it would help to say explicitly that holes, which are 
immaterial, are
allowed to be parts of material entities.  My sense is that, in this sort of 
case,
people don't trust their intuition that holes are actually there and are 
countable,
causes things, and so forth.

(Sites are partly material as well as immaterial, or at least they were when I 
last
looked.)

Best wishes,
Colin.

Original comment by batchelorc@rsc.org on 17 Feb 2010 at 4:02

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Agreed on documentation. Regarding sites, I have conflicting information from 
conversations with Barry. Needs 
to be clarified.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 17 Feb 2010 at 4:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Colin, can you verify that the current BFO 2 inclusion of 'immaterial entity' 
and corresponding axiomatization solves this issue?

Original comment by janna.ha...@gmail.com on 29 Apr 2012 at 9:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
OK, happy that this allows us to have immaterial parts that aren't necessarily 
sites.

Original comment by batchelorc@rsc.org on 30 Apr 2012 at 11:31

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 1 May 2012 at 8:12

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 8 May 2012 at 4:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Closed here and continued in issue 36

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 23 May 2012 at 4:06