Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
> Reported by dosu...@gmail.com, Jun 23 (5 days ago)
> The core class hierarchy appears to lack declarations of disjointness
entirely. Please could they be added wherever valid.
Clairification:
- this comment refers to the version of BFO found using
http://purl.obolibrary.obo/bfo.owl , which resolves to:
http://bfo.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/ontology/bfo2.owl
Older versions may be better in some respects, but do not have the Foundry
compliant BFO ids I need.
Also - I'm posting this on the BFO google code tracker
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=14. I would prefer answers on
this tracker ticket rather than on BFO discuss - or whatever other mailing list
this might be forwarded to.
Cheers,
David O-S
Original comment by dosu...@gmail.com
on 28 Jun 2011 at 3:18
Disjoint axioms added where applicable in the working version of BFO 2 in OWL.
Original comment by janna.ha...@gmail.com
on 29 Apr 2012 at 9:12
Reverted status to 'started' pending mechanism for making closure decisions.
Need to check that reference makes disjointness clear. For example there was
agreement that object, fiatobjectpart, objectaggregate would not be declared
disjoint.
"working version of BFO 2 in OWL" non referring.
Intended referent
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/source/browse/trunk/src/ontology/owl-schulz/bfo.owl
r215
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 1 May 2012 at 8:15
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 7 May 2012 at 4:54
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 8 May 2012 at 4:51
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 8 May 2012 at 4:52
Disjoints are now added between all siblings at each level, other than for the
siblings of material entity
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 5 Jul 2012 at 7:09
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
dosu...@gmail.com
on 23 Jun 2011 at 10:42