zhengj2007
commented
9 years ago From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on February 06, 2013 01:56:54
I agree that this applies to all the efforts. Where the competency is enabled depends on the particulars. I also agree that we need to have more explicit discussion around this and to better organize what we do have. Here's a start:
For OWL, We do have some competecy criteria, for example as part of Proposal_for_how_we_manage_OWL_Reference_coordination - principle 1.
There are also general competency issues such as reasoning should be sound, though the best we may do is incomplete reasoning. We want to be able to work with instances. These are relevant for both FOL and OWL, of the rest, most are FOL/OWL competencies as the reference handles them adequately, save the issue of process differentia.
We want to handle temporal phenomena such as: phase sortals - being a professor for the time one has the professor role developmental stages - the organism instantiating different types over time and having different parts We want to say now the flow cytometer has the three laser attachment with fluorescent detectors and sorting mechanism, and then the one laser and reflective detector but no sorting.
We want to continue to be able to represent canonical anatomies as well as they have been.
We want to have better differentia for classifying process types.
We want to have effective reasoning wherever possible.
Summary: Listing Clear Competency Questions for BFO2-FOL (was: Lack of Clear Competency Questions for BFO2-FOL)
From jacu...@gmail.com on February 05, 2013 20:26:55
As we think about how to get started and proceed in creating BFO2-FOL, I wonder what purpose of this effort is and what we intend to achieve.
We need a discussion of competency questions for BFO2-FOL.
What counts as success for BF02-FOL?
I put this here since it seems to apply to all of the efforts.
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=151