Entities with multiple definitions

[GoogleCodeExporter]

A number of entities in BFO2 have multiple definitions associated with them.  
e.g:

'specifically dependent continuant' (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000020)
'proper part of occurrent' (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000138)
'proper part of continuant at some time'  
(http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000175)
'temporal part of' (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000139)
'has temporal part' (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000121)

Shouldn't all entities only have a single definition?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by dosu...@gmail.com on 3 Nov 2012 at 2:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

4 of them are technical bugs that I can fix in code. The first needs a 
decision. Here's what's happened in each case. r

'specifically dependent continuant' (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000020)

In this case there is an extra definition for a subtype that isn't named in the 
ontology.
so def1 is of specifically dependent continuant and
def2 is of relational specifically dependent continuant 

My preference would be that if a definition of the relational case is
given, that we have the term, or we remove the definition. Others?

--

proper part of continuant

One definition is explicit, one is from the inverse, automatically
included. This is a bug in the code generation. I add the definition
from the inverse when no direct definition is applied. But I should
add it if there's already a definition.

--
proper part of continuant at some time

same as above

--
temporal part of

The annotation for proper temporal part of is misplaced on temporal part of. 
Will fix.

--

consequence of above

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 15 Nov 2012 at 8:58