There are variety of types of dependence that are either explicitly defined or
alluded to. The explicitly defined dependences are s-dependence and
g-dependence. However the classes 'continuant fiat boundary' and 'site' are
also dependent on other entities, albeit in different ways.
The label 'independent continuant' suggests a continuant that does not have any
dependents. Thus the question of why boundaries and sites are independent
continuants is frequently raised.
Now to the definition. In the current draft of BFO2, assuming issue 181 is
handled in the manner proposed by Barry, we will circle entities lacking one of
two types of dependencies. This seems to be an arbitrary choice, and because of
this it would seem that there are few interesting axioms that will be able to
be stated of independent continuants. Moreover we have already a number of
axioms that necessitate the cutting out of spatial region from independent
continuant. For instance the range of quality-of is independent continuant and
not spatial region.
These facts, taken together, suggest that independent continuant, at least as
currently defined, is not a universal. From an applied ontology point of view,
the class seems to be a non-functional and confusing intermediary in the
hierarchy, a hierarchy that can already be confusing to users.
It would also propose removing the class specifically dependent continuant, on
the grounds that it too brings relatively little value. It would be cleaner,
instead, to simply have the current subclasses of independent continuant and
specifically dependent continuant be siblings under continuant.
material entity
quality
realizable entity
spatial region
continuant fiat boundary
site
generically dependent continuant
Over time I have realized that each of these classes has quite unique issues
and each has substantial 'meat' to them. The dependencies of sites and
boundaries seem to be rather different from each other and specific dependence,
or at least this is proposed in significant writings by Barry and collaborators.
I have doubts if anything very interesting can be said, at the moment, for
intermediate classes between the 7 above and continuant. If IC and SDC remain a
justification should be made and a comparison made between any proposed
advantage they bring versus the cognitive costs borne by users trying to
understand them.
When we arrive at the point in BFO development that all the dependences
currently implicit are explicated and are part of BFO, we should then take up
the question of whether intermediate classes defined solely by type of
dependence would be a useful thing to do.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 24 Jul 2013 at 3:49
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
alanruttenberg@gmail.comon 24 Jul 2013 at 3:49