zhengj2007 / bfo-trunk

0 stars 0 forks source link

Using 'Domain' and 'Range' to describe ternary temporal relations is confusing or wrong #146

Open zhengj2007 opened 9 years ago

zhengj2007 commented 9 years ago

From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on February 03, 2013 18:05:59

We have many parts of the reference that are of the following sort:

3.1.1 The continuant_part_of relation ELUCIDATION: b continuant_part_of c at t =Def. b is a part of c at t & t is a temporal region & b and c are continuants. [002-001] DOMAIN: continuant RANGE: continuant (The range for ‘t’ (as in all cases throughout this document unless otherwise specified) is: temporal region.)

I understand domain and range of a function, or of a binary relation. Are these even defined for ternary relations? If so, what is the definition of Domain and Range?

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=147

zhengj2007 commented 9 years ago

From cmung...@gmail.com on February 03, 2013 15:48:05

This should all be in the clif for BFO.

Some of the work I did on formalizing type-type relations could be salvaged here. See https://obo.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/obo/obolog/trunk/obolog.kif Relevant section:

{{{ (metarelation range) (text_definition range "Constrains relations such that the object (second argument) of the relation only holds between instances of the specified type")

;; @Axiom: domain constraints on time-indexed relations (=> (and (domain ?rel ?D) (?rel ?i1 ?i2 ?t)) (instance_of ?i2 ?D ?t)) ;; @Axiom: domain constraints on atemporal relations (=> (and (domain ?rel ?D) (?rel ?i1 ?i2)) (instance_of ?i2 ?D))

}}}

Note that you need to do a similar thing for transitivity.