Current definition of independent continuant would have some GDCs be independent continuants.

[zhengj2007]

From [email protected] on July 23, 2013 23:24:45

DEFINITION: b is an independent continuant = Def. b is a continuant which is such that there is no c and no t such that b s-depends_on c at t. [017-002]

ELUCIDATION: b g-depends on c at t1 means: b exists at t1 and c exists at t1 & for some type B it holds that (c instantiates B at t1) & necessarily, for all t (if b exists at t then some instance_of B exists at t) & not (b s-depends_on c at t1). [072-002]

Definition: b is a generically dependent continuant = Def. b is a continuant that g-depends_on one or more other entities. [074-001]

Since we can have GDCs that at no time s-depend on something, such GDCs would also be independent continuants, violating the intention of mutual disjointness of siblings.

Barry proposes modifying the definition of independent continuant as follows:

b is a continuant which is such that there is no c and no t such that b s-depends_on c at t and there is no d and no t such that b g-depends-on d at t.

I propose that we remove independent continuant from BFO. I will detail the rationale in the next issue.

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=181