search

zhengj2007 / bfo-export

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

Suggested "atemporal" permanent generic relations (ro2005-ish) do not have natural inverses and need continuant/occurrent distinction #169

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The inverse of permanent generic part of is not permanent generic has part. 
This is easy to see in that, in general the left hand side of this relation is 
a single entity, whereas the right hand side in general is either a type, or at 
least a number of individuals.

That would follow the pattern that the RO class level relations are not 
inverses of each other. 

Only the -at-a-time instance-of relation are (sort of) inverse. 

Also note that permanent generic part hood doesn't make sense for occurrents. 

Therefore the suggestion that the atemporal relations are simpler and don't 
require as many variants as the temporalized relations is false. There would 
need to be, at least, a distinction between occurrents and continuants is 
needed (because generic parthood only makes sense for continuants) and separate 
inverses are needed (since the part-of relation inverse is not has-part).

This would suggest that a strategy that defined "ro2005-ish" atemporal 
relations, would not seem to be a simpler solution than that which is offered 
with the temporal relations.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 7 May 2013 at 5:19

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I think there are a lot of assumptions hidden in here. The first assumption 
doesn't hold of the TQC interpretation.

Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com on 7 May 2013 at 5:25

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
IIRC the TQC version I proposed used the temporalized relations to good effect. 
If the TQC interpretation means that during any TCQ there is only one rhs for 
each lhs, can you say why you need something different than those? I hadn't 
previously heard it offered that the atemporal has-part relation would operate 
only on TCQs in the case that there was permanent generic parthood. If so, how 
would you actually express permanent generic parthood?

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 7 May 2013 at 5:30

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
ps. Still hopefully waiting for the explicit formulation so I don't need to 
make assumptions any more...

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 7 May 2013 at 5:42