There are variety of types of dependence that are either explicitly defined or alluded to. The explicitly defined dependences are s-dependence and g-dependence. However the classes 'continuant fiat boundary' and 'site' are also dependent on other entities, albeit in different ways.
The label 'independent continuant' suggests a continuant that does not have any dependents. Thus the question of why boundaries and sites are independent continuants is frequently raised.
Now to the definition. In the current draft of BFO2, assuming issue #181 is handled in the manner proposed by Barry, we will circle entities lacking one of two types of dependencies. This seems to be an arbitrary choice, and because of this it would seem that there are few interesting axioms that will be able to be stated of independent continuants. Moreover we have already a number of axioms that necessitate the cutting out of spatial region from independent continuant. For instance the range of quality-of is independent continuant and not spatial region.
These facts, taken together, suggest that independent continuant, at least as currently defined, is not a universal. From an applied ontology point of view, the class seems to be a non-functional and confusing intermediary in the hierarchy, a hierarchy that can already be confusing to users.
It would also propose removing the class specifically dependent continuant, on the grounds that it too brings relatively little value. It would be cleaner, instead, to simply have the current subclasses of independent continuant and specifically dependent continuant be siblings under continuant.
material entity
quality
realizable entity
spatial region
continuant fiat boundary
site
generically dependent continuant
Over time I have realized that each of these classes has quite unique issues and each has substantial 'meat' to them. The dependencies of sites and boundaries seem to be rather different from each other and specific dependence, or at least this is proposed in significant writings by Barry and collaborators.
I have doubts if anything very interesting can be said, at the moment, for intermediate classes between the 7 above and continuant. If IC and SDC remain a justification should be made and a comparison made between any proposed advantage they bring versus the cognitive costs borne by users trying to understand them.
When we arrive at the point in BFO development that all the dependences currently implicit are explicated and are part of BFO, we should then take up the question of whether intermediate classes defined solely by type of dependence would be a useful thing to do.
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on July 23, 2013 23:49:46
There are variety of types of dependence that are either explicitly defined or alluded to. The explicitly defined dependences are s-dependence and g-dependence. However the classes 'continuant fiat boundary' and 'site' are also dependent on other entities, albeit in different ways.
The label 'independent continuant' suggests a continuant that does not have any dependents. Thus the question of why boundaries and sites are independent continuants is frequently raised.
Now to the definition. In the current draft of BFO2, assuming issue #181 is handled in the manner proposed by Barry, we will circle entities lacking one of two types of dependencies. This seems to be an arbitrary choice, and because of this it would seem that there are few interesting axioms that will be able to be stated of independent continuants. Moreover we have already a number of axioms that necessitate the cutting out of spatial region from independent continuant. For instance the range of quality-of is independent continuant and not spatial region.
These facts, taken together, suggest that independent continuant, at least as currently defined, is not a universal. From an applied ontology point of view, the class seems to be a non-functional and confusing intermediary in the hierarchy, a hierarchy that can already be confusing to users.
It would also propose removing the class specifically dependent continuant, on the grounds that it too brings relatively little value. It would be cleaner, instead, to simply have the current subclasses of independent continuant and specifically dependent continuant be siblings under continuant.
material entity quality realizable entity spatial region continuant fiat boundary site generically dependent continuant
Over time I have realized that each of these classes has quite unique issues and each has substantial 'meat' to them. The dependencies of sites and boundaries seem to be rather different from each other and specific dependence, or at least this is proposed in significant writings by Barry and collaborators.
I have doubts if anything very interesting can be said, at the moment, for intermediate classes between the 7 above and continuant. If IC and SDC remain a justification should be made and a comparison made between any proposed advantage they bring versus the cognitive costs borne by users trying to understand them.
When we arrive at the point in BFO development that all the dependences currently implicit are explicated and are part of BFO, we should then take up the question of whether intermediate classes defined solely by type of dependence would be a useful thing to do.
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=182