Re: Issue 3 in bfo: Definitions for children of Realizable Entity are proving hard to understand and work with

[b...@googlecode.com]

Comment #1 on issue 3 by janna.ha...@gmail.com: Definitions for children of
Realizable Entity are proving hard to understand and work with
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=3

Alan, what is the status of this issue with respect to BFO 2? If there is
still an outstanding, can you clarify the remaining problems?

[b...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Labels: -Type-Defect Type-BFO2-Reference

Comment #2 on issue 3 by alanrut...@gmail.com: Definitions for children

of Realizable Entity are proving hard to understand and work with
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=3

People find it difficult to make determination of whether realizable
entities are functions, dispositions, or roles. Representative
http://precedings.nature.com/documents/3228/version/1

Problematic examples:
Substrate, Product, reagent

Social roles seem clear, being created only in certain types of processes.
Roles of molecules are suspect previous definitions of dispositions
characterized them as being lost only when there are structural changes.
That wouldn't be true of roles.

There's more, but that's a start.