Michael Rabenberg

Questions about occupies-spatial-region

17

I ran this scenario (alongside BFO-2020) through the reasoner that Werner and I use (natural-language summary below): t([0,occupies-spatial-region,material-entity-1,region-1,time-1]). t([0,instance-of,material-entity-1,material-entity,time-1]). ``` (cl:comment "at time-1 there's a part of region-1 that isn't...

The spatial regions that continuant fiat boundaries occupy

77

Fiat points, lines, and surfaces occupy zero-, one-, and two-dimensional spatial regions, respectively. I *think*, however, that the axioms don't imply as much. Am I right about this?

Material entities (and sites) occupy 3D spatial regions (right?)

20

BFO literature seems consistently to say: (A) Every material entity occupies a 3D spatial region. (B) Every site occupies a 3D spatial region. But there appears to be no axiom(s)...

[ysp-1] follows from [kfj-1] and [ixo-1]

1

Here are three axioms: (cl:comment "If a has-continuant-part b then if a is an instance of fiat-surface then b is an instance of continuant-fiat-boundary [ysp-1]" (forall (p q t) (if...

"Act of Condoling" should be "Act of Consoling." The error appears in the rdfs:label and in the IRI.

This is listed as a change in 1.6: "Equivalence axioms for cco:Cause and cco:Effect changed from bfo:occurrent to bfo:process" (https://github.com/CommonCoreOntology/CommonCoreOntologies/releases/tag/v1.6-2024-09-26) This change would seem to call for corresponding changes to...