Michael Rabenberg
Michael Rabenberg
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...
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?
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)...
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...
This problem was pointed out by someone else the other day; wanted to post it before it was forgotten. (I take no credit for the counterexample!) Here's the definition of...
Here's the definition of proper-continuant-part-of: (cl:comment "x proper continuant part of y means x is a continuant part of y but y is not continuant part of x [sls-1]" (forall...
Here's the elucidation of material entity in the .ttl owl file: >skos:definition "(Elucidation) A material entity is an independent continuant has some portion of matter as continuant part"@en ; This...
I propose a revision to the textual definition of bfo:occurs-in. It is shorter and more readable than the current version, and I think it captures the intended semantics of the...