Is dependent continuant intended to be a term in BFO2?

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It is not given an elucidation or definition. I does not appear in the class 
diagram. It is used in a single axiom [051-001] but is not defined, in the FOL, 
as either a primitive or defined categorical predicate.

If it is intended to be included, please amend the above.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 23 May 2012 at 3:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Discussions in threads: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bfo-owl-devel/fC963zXVAf0
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bfo-owl-devel/iXAk_yg6lrM

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 23 May 2012 at 3:15

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Stefan

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 15 Jun 2012 at 4:47

• Changed title: Is dependent continuant intended to be a term in BFO2?
• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I asked Barry and he said: "It is not intended to be a term in BFO 2.0 Please 
do what is necessary to clarify this".

I think that there is only one logical axiom that needs to change, which is the 
definition of "inheres in". Alan mentioned axiom [051-001] but what I see is 
[051-002]. In this axiom "dependent continuant" should be "specifically 
dependent continuant" as confirmed by the domain on the next line.

1. OWL: Since "dependent continuant" is not included as a class in the OWL 
files, the only difference would be the textual definition of "inheres in". 
Since the OWL states the correct Domains, I don't consider this urgent. Should 
I update the OWL directly or should this change flow from the spec?

2. FOL: I don't know what is required to update the FOL.

3. Specification: I searched the BFO2-Reference-editing-version.docx for 
mentions of "dependent continuant". I think the following changes are necessary 
(in square brackets):

- p27 Range of "s-depends": "for reciprocal s-dependence: [specifically] 
dependent continuant; process". Since the domain does not include GDC, the 
range of the reciprocal case cannot include GDC, so this change makes sense to 
me.
- p29 "The entities that s-depends_on something include • specifically [and 
generically] dependent continuants, which". Should not include "and 
generically" since GDC is not in the domain.
-p29 "Examples of one-sided s-dependence of a [specifically] dependent 
continuant on an independent continuant:"
- p30 "Examples of reciprocal s-dependence between [specifically] dependent 
continuants:"
- p55 Axiom [051-002]: "DEFINITION: b inheres_in c at t =Def. b is a 
[specifically] dependent continuant & c is an independent continuant that is 
not a spatial region & b s-depends_on c at t." This is made clear by the domain 
specification on the next line.
- p55 "Inherence is a subrelation of s-depends_on which holds between a 
[specifically] dependent continuant and an independent continuant that is not a 
spatial region. Since [specifically] dependent continuants cannot migrate from 
one independent continuant bearer to another,"
- p75 I think this informal mention can stay: "which reappears in BFO as the 
opposition between independent and dependent continuants"

If this looks good, I can commit my changes to the spec.

Related: I also noticed mentions of "realizable dependent continuant" in the 
spec. Shouldn't it be "realizable entity" throughout?

Original comment by ja...@overton.ca on 19 Nov 2014 at 3:19