GoogleCodeExporter
commented
9 years ago BFO has a ternary has disposition relation, rather than a binary has
disposition relation. A the current state of development of BFO 2 OWL, we
introduce the binary some time/all time relations. For these we currently give
the BFO reference definition as the term definition, and differentiate the
terms in an editor note which expresses the temporal qualification. e.g.
"Alan Ruttenberg: This is a binary version of a ternary time-indexed,
instance-level, relation. The BFO reading of the binary relation 'bearer of at
all times@en' is: forall(t) exists_at(x,t) -> exists_at(y,t) and 'bearer
of@en(x,y,t)'.:
This is a known issue and the accepted solution is that the binary some/all
relation will be added to BFO reference, after which the definitions will be
pulled from it as the other definitions are.
The same is true for other temporal relations.
--
The issue with has quality all/some is that in the reference, currently only
one of each pair of inverse relations is given a definition. It is not a
trivial transform to create a definition for an inverse, though we might try
that. Better would be to include the definitions in the reference.
--
You are correct that has disposition at all times is a subproperty of has
disposition at some time. That it doesn't is an omission. Thanks for pointing
it out. The source looks correct
--has-d_st
---has-f_st
----has_f_at
---has-d_at
So there is a bug in owl generation that needs to be found.
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 7 Mar 2013 at 9:56
- Changed state: Accepted
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
zhengj2...@gmail.comon 7 Mar 2013 at 8:22