Issue 14 in bfo: core classes lack declarations of disjointness

[b...@googlecode.com]

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 14 by dosu...@gmail.com: core classes lack declarations of
disjointness
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=14

The core class hierarchy appears to lack declarations of disjointness
entirely. Please could they be added wherever valid.

[Pierre Grenon]

Is the following the file you are using as reference?

http://code.google.com/p/bfo/source/browse/releases/1.1.1/bfo.owl

there's a bunch of disjointness asserted in that file

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "BFO Discuss" group.
> To post to this group, send email to bfo-d...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> bfo-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/bfo-discuss?hl=en.
>
>

[b...@googlecode.com]

Comment #1 on issue 14 by dosu...@gmail.com: core classes lack declarations
of disjointness
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=14

> Reported by dosu...@gmail.com, Jun 23 (5 days ago)

> The core class hierarchy appears to lack declarations of disjointness
> entirely. Please could they be added wherever valid.

Clairification:

- this comment refers to the version of BFO found using
http://purl.obolibrary.obo/bfo.owl , which resolves to:
http://bfo.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/ontology/bfo2.owl

Older versions may be better in some respects, but do not have the Foundry
compliant BFO ids I need.

Also - I'm posting this on the BFO google code tracker
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=14. I would prefer answers
on this tracker ticket rather than on BFO discuss - or whatever other
mailing list this might be forwarded to.

Cheers,

David O-S

[b...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Status: Done
Owner: janna.ha...@gmail.com

Comment #2 on issue 14 by janna.ha...@gmail.com: core classes lack

declarations of disjointness
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=14

Disjoint axioms added where applicable in the working version of BFO 2 in
OWL.

[b...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Status: Started

Comment #3 on issue 14 by alanrut...@gmail.com: core classes lack

declarations of disjointness
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=14

Reverted status to 'started' pending mechanism for making closure decisions.
Need to check that reference makes disjointness clear. For example there
was agreement that object, fiatobjectpart, objectaggregate would not be
declared disjoint.
"working version of BFO 2 in OWL" non referring.
Intended referent
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/source/browse/trunk/src/ontology/owl-schulz/bfo.owl
r215