In the BFO reference the relation located_in is defined in terms of continuant_part_of (between regions)
DEFINITION [045-001]:
b located_in c at t = Def. b and c are independent continuants, and the region at which b is located at t is a (proper or improper) continuant_part_of the region at which c is located at t. [045-001]
However, the axiom
Axiom [047-002]:
if b continuant_part_of c at t and b is an independent continuant, then b is located_in c at t.
infers location from parthood between continuants. As regions (see above) are independent continuants, too, this leads to a cycle, as the definition of location is based on parthood between regions, which implied location between regions which implies parthood etc. etc.
From steschu@gmail.com on October 17, 2013 12:37:49
In the BFO reference the relation located_in is defined in terms of continuant_part_of (between regions)
DEFINITION [045-001]: b located_in c at t = Def. b and c are independent continuants, and the region at which b is located at t is a (proper or improper) continuant_part_of the region at which c is located at t. [045-001]
However, the axiom
Axiom [047-002]: if b continuant_part_of c at t and b is an independent continuant, then b is located_in c at t.
infers location from parthood between continuants. As regions (see above) are independent continuants, too, this leads to a cycle, as the definition of location is based on parthood between regions, which implied location between regions which implies parthood etc. etc.
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=185