'is part of' is not transitive

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The 'is part of' object property and its SubProperty 'is physical part of' do 
not have the property characteristic - transitive.  Please fix this!

Original issue reported on code.google.com by dosu...@gmail.com on 24 Jun 2011 at 7:30

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> Reported by dosu...@gmail.com, Jun 24 (4 days ago)

> The 'is part of' object property and its SubProperty 'is physical part of' do 
not > have the property characteristic - transitive.  Please fix this!

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=16.  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 3:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Not to object but just wondering what breaks in the absence of an explicit 
typing.

by http://bfo.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/ontology/bfo2-relations.owl 
is_part_of seems to be an inverse of has_part which is transitive, isn't it 
enough?

true the physical variant doesn't seem to be know transitive

Original comment by pierregr...@gmail.com on 28 Jun 2011 at 3:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> is_part_of seems to be an inverse of has_part which is transitive, isn't it 
enough?

It's enough for ontologies that import both relations. But some may not, so 
better, I think, to be explicit.

Original comment by dosu...@gmail.com on 28 Jun 2011 at 3:45

[GoogleCodeExporter]

not trying to be thick nor antagonising, but wouldn't ontologies simply import 
the whole of BFO ? 

Original comment by pierregr...@gmail.com on 28 Jun 2011 at 3:50

[GoogleCodeExporter]

'is part of' is transitive in current working version of BFO 2 in OWL

Original comment by janna.ha...@gmail.com on 29 Apr 2012 at 9:09

• Changed state: Done

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Pierre, no, it is possible to import just a portion of BFO and I concur with 
David that therefore having the explicit assertion is of benefit.

However: I have change the status of this issue back to 'started' pending a 
decision process for making closure decisions.
"current working version of BFO 2 in OWL" is non-referring.
Intended referent is, I believe, 
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 8:08