"Object aggregate is to be treated as a close analogue of set of objects, in the mathematician’s sense; thus [-->] an object aggregate has no parts other than the objects that are its members."
A part of a member is a part of the object aggregate. It's just not another member. You want to say there is no part of the aggregate has a part that doesn't overlap a member, and that no sum of proper parts of members are members (even though such a sum could be part of the aggregate)
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on April 07, 2013 20:32:50
The following statement is incorrect:
"Object aggregate is to be treated as a close analogue of set of objects, in the mathematician’s sense; thus [-->] an object aggregate has no parts other than the objects that are its members."
A part of a member is a part of the object aggregate. It's just not another member. You want to say there is no part of the aggregate has a part that doesn't overlap a member, and that no sum of proper parts of members are members (even though such a sum could be part of the aggregate)
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=161