search

zhengj2007 / bfo-export

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

is part_of intended to be included in BFO2 #46

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
It is not given an elucidation or definition. It is not defined or used in the 
FOL.

If included it would be incoherent to have it be a superproperty of the various 
other subkinds of part_of as they have different arities.

Section 2.02 Relations of parthood, in the section on mereology axioms makes 
them in terms of part_of and proper_part_of, but these do not logically extend 
to continuant_part_of, occurrent_part_of without reformulation or additional 
axioms.

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

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 issue reported on code.google.com by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 23 May 2012 at 3:34

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
part_of is not intended to be included
rather we have continuant_part_of, occurrent_part_of, and temporal_part_of (the 
last is a child of occurrent_part_of)

Original comment by ifo...@gmail.com on 23 May 2012 at 5:16

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
part_of is not intended to be included
rather we have continuant_part_of, occurrent_part_of, and temporal_part_of (the 
last is a child of occurrent_part_of)

Original comment by ifo...@gmail.com on 23 May 2012 at 5:16

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
If the following are to be obsoleted, can we have plenty of notice as we'll 
need to add to RO and have some time for migration:

(part-of !obo:BFO_0000050 :Obsolete (:issue 46))
(has-part !obo:BFO_0000051 :Obsolete (:issue 46))

Can we say at least 1 month, after officially deciding they will be obsoleted? 
I will try and migrate sooner though.

Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com on 25 May 2012 at 4:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I won't be changing owl-ruttenberg at all, so one option is to keep using that. 
Do you mean you want them also in the tentative new release? There's also still 
time to push back on Barry about this if you wish. My file records what I know, 
but is intended to be subservient to issue resolution and working group 
decision.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 25 May 2012 at 5:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Answer: No

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 15 Jun 2012 at 4:44