Add annotations on terms, to papers that are necessary to understand the term - taken from Reference

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Melanie says "- elucidation for object_aggregate "a is an object aggregate 
means: a is a material entity consisting exactly of a plurality of objects as 
member_parts. [025-002" Based on this, one could classify "human" as object 
aggregate" (cell are cited as example of usage for object), or "car" 
(engineered artifacts are another example of usage for objects) which I don't 
think we want?"

Alan replies "I can try to comment not authoritatively.
1. on object aggregate I don't understand this well enough to comment.
Have you read the pertinent section of the BFO2 Reference document?
(same question for the rest)."

Melanie says "I did read it a while back, and I do understand the idea behind 
object/object aggregate. My concern was that when reading the BFO owl file, 
based on the definitions of object (a is an object means: a is a material 
entity which manifests causal unity of one or other of the types CUn listed 
above & is of a type (a material universal) instances of which are maximal 
relative to this criterion of causal unity. [024-001) and object aggregate (a 
is an object aggregate means: a is a material entity consisting exactly of a 
plurality of objects as member_parts. [025-002) (and examples chosen), it is 
not obvious why things such as "human" and "car" shall not be considered object 
aggregates.
I assume that we intend the OWL file to be somewhat self-standing right? By 
this I mean that reading definitions in the file should enable users to 
identify most cases and determine where their terms belong (not taking into 
account borderline cases, but rather general resources)

If this is true, then I think we should add the sentence "An entity a is an 
object aggregate if and only if there is a mutually exhaustive and pairwise 
disjoint partition of a into objects [63]. " to the term object aggregate - not 
sure if that should be in the elucidation or somewhere else. It may also be 
worthwhile considering a mechanism allowing to cite relevant sources. In this 
case, object aggregate relies on definition of partitions made in [63] Thomas 
Bittner and Barry Smith, “A Theory of Granular Partitions”, in K. Munn and 
B. Smith (eds.), Applied Ontology: An Introduction, Frankfurt/Lancaster: ontos, 
2008, 125-158. OBI used the "definition source" annotation property, maybe 
something we should consider too?"

Alan says "This can be accomplished by adding an annotation to the BFO2
reference. Please file a BFO OWL issue so I don't forget. Just paste
the above discussion into the issue, please, and assign to me."

see https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bfo-owl-devel/s9Uug5QmAws/BjjgLzd1_DkJ

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcour...@gmail.com on 19 Jun 2012 at 6:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Melanie will collate the list of reference/term connections and then we will 
add it.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2012 at 8:46

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2012 at 8:47

• Changed title: _Add annotations on terms, to papers that are necessary to understand the term - taken from Reference _
• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Created extra file at 
https://code.google.com/p/bfo/source/browse/trunk/src/ontology/owl-group/specifi
cation/extra-references-annotations.lisp

This file will contain extra annotations coming in from the reference. This 
differentiates it from the file at 
https://code.google.com/p/bfo/source/browse/trunk/src/ontology/owl-group/specifi
cation/non-reference-annotations.lisp which is used for non-reference 
annotations.

Original comment by mcour...@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2012 at 9:42