Entities with multiple definitions

[zhengj2007]

From [email protected] on November 02, 2012 22:05:26

A number of entities in BFO2 have multiple definitions associated with them. e.g:

'specifically dependent continuant' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000020 ) 'proper part of occurrent' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000138 ) 'proper part of continuant at some time' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000175 ) 'temporal part of' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000139 ) 'has temporal part' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000121 )

Shouldn't all entities only have a single definition?

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=129

[zhengj2007]

From [email protected] on November 15, 2012 12:58:36

4 of them are technical bugs that I can fix in code. The first needs a decision. Here's what's happened in each case. r

'specifically dependent continuant' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000020 )

In this case there is an extra definition for a subtype that isn't named in the ontology. so def1 is of specifically dependent continuant and def2 is of relational specifically dependent continuant

My preference would be that if a definition of the relational case is given, that we have the term, or we remove the definition. Others?

--

proper part of continuant

One definition is explicit, one is from the inverse, automatically included. This is a bug in the code generation. I add the definition from the inverse when no direct definition is applied. But I should add it if there's already a definition.

-- proper part of continuant at some time

same as above

-- temporal part of

The annotation for proper temporal part of is misplaced on temporal part of. Will fix.

--

consequence of above