bfo.owl

[Alan Ruttenberg]

The current version is augmented from (some) annotations from the
reference document.
Not all annotations are attached yet as I need to special case the
ternary annotations and attach them to the different temporalized
relations. There is also some character encoding problem that I
currently have to manually fix. That's wasted a couple hours of my
life again.
Next to do:
Get the rest of annotations working.
Put tweaked annotations from relation onto inverse when it doesn't
have its own.
Bring in more axioms.


-Alan

[Melanie Courtot]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for producing the file. I started reviewing it, and made a list of some issues I found on the way. Note that I didn't have time to look at everything yet, so this list is not exhaustive. I tried to group by type of comment; hope that helps.

Cheers,
Melanie


(1) Things unclear

- elucidation for object_aggregate "a is an object aggregate means: a is a material entity consisting exactly of a plurality of objects as member_parts. [025-002" Based on this, one could classify "human" as object aggregate" (cell are cited as example of usage for object), or "car" (engineered artifacts are another example of usage for objects) which I don't think we want?

- I am confused by the examples for relational quality: a marriage bond, an instance of love, an obligation between one person and another. Does that imply that marriage, love and obligation are qualities? I would prefer things like "axial to" (from PATO)

- what is the difference between zero-dimensional spatial region (elucidation "a point in space") and a zero-dimensional continual fiat boundary (a fiat point whose location is defined in relation to some material entity.)? It seems like the latter should be subclass of the former based on elucidations and examples of usage. For example, I would say that "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona meet" is a point in space.

(2) translation artifacts

- immaterial and material -> immaterial entities and material entities

- some extra characters, e.g. in the example of usage for "three-dimensional spatial region, there is a "\" before the comma. (presumably some character protection?) (apologies if those are the encoding issues you were referring to)

- last bracket of axiom number is stripped off

- when defining for example "generically dependent continuant". The current definition reads "a is a generically dependent continuant = Def. a is a continuant that generically depends on one or more other entities. [074-001" I think we should lose the part before and up to =Def.

(3) link translation-bfo2 ref

- elucidation of spatial region:"A spatial region is a continuant entity that is a continuant_part_of spaceR as defined relative to some frame R. [035-001" there is a relation "continuant part of at some time" and a relation "continent proper part of at some time", but no "continuant_part_of". It would be helpful to homogenize names.

- no elucidation for fiat object

- typo in elucidation of object "a is an object means: a is a material entity which manifests causal unity of one or other of the types CUn listed above & is of a type (a material universal) instances of which are maximal relative to this criterion of causal unity. [024-001"

(4) other comments

- three-dimensional spatial region : add "spatial volume" as alternative term?

- disposition: add "internally-grounded realizable entity" as alternative term?

- role: add "Externally-Grounded Realizable entity" as alternative term? (Note: there is no index entry for role in the reference)

- what is the bfo specification label annotation property?

- is there a minimal set of metadata agreed upon? For example, immaterial entity doesn't have example of usage


(5) General remarks

(i) would it be possible to use uppercase letter in elucidation" For example, instead of "To say that a is a realizable entity is to say that a is a specifically dependent continuant that inheres in some material entity and is of a type instances of which are realized in processes of a correlated type. [058-001" I think using "To say that A is a realizable entity is to say that A is a specifically dependent continuant that inheres in some material entity and is of A type instances of which are realized in processes of a correlated type. [058-001" or use an other letter than "a"? It is confusing to read in an english sentence.

(ii) could we split example of usages in different annotation properties? e.g. instead of "an atom of element X has the disposition to decay to an atom of element Y\the cell wall is disposed to filter chemicals in endocitosis and exocitosis\certain people have a predisposition to colon cancer\children are innately disposed to categorize objects in certain ways." we would have 3 different annotations "example of usage"

> -- the bfo-owl-devel group prefers that conversations on matters related to the specification take place on the mailing list so that other team members and users can follow how decisions are made. Please ensure you tell your mail application to respond to all.

---
Mélanie Courtot
MSFHR/PCIRN Ph.D. Candidate,
Terry Fox Laboratory - BCCRC
675 West 10th Avenue
Vancouver, BC
V5Z 1L3, Canada

[Alan Ruttenberg]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Melanie Courtot <mcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> Thanks for producing the file. I started reviewing it, and made a list of some issues I found on the way. Note that I didn't have time to look at everything yet, so this list is not exhaustive. I tried to group by type of comment; hope that helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Melanie
>
>
> (1) Things unclear
>
> - elucidation for object_aggregate "a is an object aggregate means: a is a material entity consisting exactly of a plurality of objects as member_parts. [025-002" Based on this, one could classify "human" as object aggregate" (cell are cited as example of usage for object), or "car" (engineered artifacts are another example of usage for objects) which I don't think we want?
>
> - I am confused by the examples for relational quality: a marriage bond, an instance of love, an obligation between one person and another. Does that imply that marriage, love and obligation are qualities?  I would prefer things like "axial to" (from PATO)
>
> - what is the difference between zero-dimensional spatial region (elucidation "a point in space") and a zero-dimensional continual fiat boundary (a fiat point whose location is defined in relation to some material entity.)? It seems like the latter should be subclass of the former based on elucidations and examples of usage. For example, I would say that "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona meet" is a point in space.

these are straight from the BFO2 Reference, so BFO2 Reference issues
should be file for these.

I can try to comment not authoritatively.
1. on object aggregate I don't understand this well enough to comment.
Have you read the pertinent section of the BFO2 Reference document?
(same question for the rest).
2. I concur that the examples for relational quality are not obvious.
I suspect it has to do with Barry's recent work on "Mental qualities".
I think this one is definitely worth filing an issue on. To me these
seem like relational roles.
3. "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New
Mexico, and Arizona meet" : There are many frames in which that point
is zooming through many points in space. Whereas, no matter what the
frame, the quadripoint is always in the same relation to the
boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona.

> (2) translation artifacts
>
> - immaterial and material -> immaterial entities and material entities

Yes. I have not yet brought in the official names from the BFO2
Reference. (mentioned)

> - some extra characters, e.g. in the example of usage for "three-dimensional spatial region, there is a "\" before the comma. (presumably some character protection?) (apologies if those are the encoding issues you were referring to)

Unfinished. Each example will be in its own property and the \,
protect agains split. Soon.

> - last bracket of axiom number is stripped off

Fixed in the current version

> - when defining for example "generically dependent continuant". The current definition reads "a is a generically dependent continuant = Def. a is a continuant that generically depends on one or more other entities. [074-001" I think we should lose the part before and up to =Def.

This is what it says in the reference. I could systematically remove
these prefixes if it was desired. Post an OWL issue?

> (3) link translation-bfo2 ref
>
> - elucidation of spatial region:"A spatial region is a continuant entity that is a continuant_part_of spaceR as defined relative to some frame R. [035-001" there is a relation "continuant part of at some time" and a relation "continent proper part of at some time", but no "continuant_part_of". It would be helpful to homogenize names.

Agreed. I am thinking about how to do this. Relatively low priority
compared to getting more axioms in.

> - no elucidation for fiat object

Fixed in current version

> - typo in elucidation of object "a is an object means: a is a material entity which manifests causal unity of one or other of the types CUn listed above &amp; is of a type (a material universal) instances of which are maximal relative to this criterion of causal unity. [024-001"

The &amp; are now gone. Was there another typo?

> (4) other comments
>
> - three-dimensional spatial region : add "spatial volume" as alternative term?
> - disposition: add "internally-grounded realizable entity" as alternative term?

To be added as annotation next time I do some work on Reference
document (which is still in limbo due to Barry editing a older version
by mistake. Could you add these to a new issue to collect stuff that
can be got by adding annotations to the reference?

> - role: add "Externally-Grounded Realizable entity" as alternative term? (Note: there is no index entry for role in the reference)

Add a new reference issue, please.

> - what is the bfo specification label annotation property?

It is to keep track of the identifiers I use in the code that generates BFO.

> - is there a minimal set of metadata agreed upon? For example, immaterial entity doesn't have example of usage

I take these from the reference. Possibility 1: There is some example
and I missed annotating it. Remedy: Have a look yourself to see if I
missed it. Possibility 2: There weren't any in the reference in which
case ask Barry to amend (with reference issue). Possibility 3, pull
up the examples from the subclasses.

Preference?

> (5) General remarks
>
> (i) would it be possible to use uppercase letter in elucidation" For example, instead of "To say that a is a realizable entity is to say that a is a specifically dependent continuant that inheres in some material entity and is of a type instances of which are realized in processes of a correlated type. [058-001" I think using "To say that A is a realizable entity is to say that A is a specifically dependent continuant that inheres in some material entity and is of A type instances of which are realized in processes of a correlated type. [058-001" or use an other letter than "a"? It is confusing to read in an english sentence.

File a reference issue, please.

> (ii) could we split example of usages in different annotation properties? e.g. instead of "an atom of element X has the disposition to decay to an atom of element Y\the cell wall is disposed to filter chemicals in endocitosis and exocitosis\certain people have a predisposition to colon cancer\children are innately disposed to categorize objects in certain ways." we would have 3 different annotations "example of usage"

On the list.

Thanks so much for your review! Extremely useful and just the sort of
thing we need!

-Alan

[Melanie Courtot]

Thanks for the reply Alan, and the next iteration of the file. Further comments inline.

Cheers,
Melanie

On 2012-06-18, at 8:40 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Melanie Courtot <mcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> Thanks for producing the file. I started reviewing it, and made a list of some issues I found on the way. Note that I didn't have time to look at everything yet, so this list is not exhaustive. I tried to group by type of comment; hope that helps.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Melanie
>>
>>
>> (1) Things unclear
>>
>> - elucidation for object_aggregate "a is an object aggregate means: a is a material entity consisting exactly of a plurality of objects as member_parts. [025-002" Based on this, one could classify "human" as object aggregate" (cell are cited as example of usage for object), or "car" (engineered artifacts are another example of usage for objects) which I don't think we want?
>>
>> - I am confused by the examples for relational quality: a marriage bond, an instance of love, an obligation between one person and another. Does that imply that marriage, love and obligation are qualities? I would prefer things like "axial to" (from PATO)
>>
>> - what is the difference between zero-dimensional spatial region (elucidation "a point in space") and a zero-dimensional continual fiat boundary (a fiat point whose location is defined in relation to some material entity.)? It seems like the latter should be subclass of the former based on elucidations and examples of usage. For example, I would say that "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona meet" is a point in space.
>
> these are straight from the BFO2 Reference, so BFO2 Reference issues
> should be file for these.
>
> I can try to comment not authoritatively.
> 1. on object aggregate I don't understand this well enough to comment.
> Have you read the pertinent section of the BFO2 Reference document?
> (same question for the rest).

I did read it a while back, and I do understand the idea behind object/object aggregate. My concern was that when reading the BFO owl file, based on the definitions of object (a is an object means: a is a material entity which manifests causal unity of one or other of the types CUn listed above &amp; is of a type (a material universal) instances of which are maximal relative to this criterion of causal unity. [024-001) and object aggregate (a is an object aggregate means: a is a material entity consisting exactly of a plurality of objects as member_parts. [025-002) (and examples chosen), it is not obvious why things such as "human" and "car" shall not be considered object aggregates.
I assume that we intend the OWL file to be somewhat self-standing right? By this I mean that reading definitions in the file should enable users to identify most cases and determine where their terms belong (not taking into account borderline cases, but rather general resources)

If this is true, then I think we should add the sentence "An entity a is an object aggregate if and only if there is a mutually exhaustive and pairwise disjoint partition of a into objects [63]. " to the term object aggregate - not sure if that should be in the elucidation or somewhere else. It may also be worthwhile considering a mechanism allowing to cite relevant sources. In this case, object aggregate relies on definition of partitions made in [63] Thomas Bittner and Barry Smith, “A Theory of Granular Partitions”, in K. Munn and B. Smith (eds.), Applied Ontology: An Introduction, Frankfurt/Lancaster: ontos, 2008, 125-158. OBI used the "definition source" annotation property, maybe something we should consider too?

> 2. I concur that the examples for relational quality are not obvious.
> I suspect it has to do with Barry's recent work on "Mental qualities".
> I think this one is definitely worth filing an issue on. To me these
> seem like relational roles.

I agree. Issue at https://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=56

> 3. "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New
> Mexico, and Arizona meet" : There are many frames in which that point
> is zooming through many points in space. Whereas, no matter what the
> frame, the quadripoint is always in the same relation to the
> boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona.

With this additional explanation it does make sense to me now. Maybe add as an editor note?

>
>> - when defining for example "generically dependent continuant". The current definition reads "a is a generically dependent continuant = Def. a is a continuant that generically depends on one or more other entities. [074-001" I think we should lose the part before and up to =Def.
>
> This is what it says in the reference. I could systematically remove
> these prefixes if it was desired. Post an OWL issue?

well some have it and some not, so I would prefer to remove it and make things more homogenous.
Issue at https://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=57

>
>> (3) link translation-bfo2 ref
>>
>> - elucidation of spatial region:"A spatial region is a continuant entity that is a continuant_part_of spaceR as defined relative to some frame R. [035-001" there is a relation "continuant part of at some time" and a relation "continent proper part of at some time", but no "continuant_part_of". It would be helpful to homogenize names.
>
> Agreed. I am thinking about how to do this. Relatively low priority
> compared to getting more axioms in.

ok

>
>
>> - typo in elucidation of object "a is an object means: a is a material entity which manifests causal unity of one or other of the types CUn listed above &amp; is of a type (a material universal) instances of which are maximal relative to this criterion of causal unity. [024-001"
>
> The &amp; are now gone. Was there another typo?

Without the explanation of what CUn is this doesn't make much sense. Issue at https://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=58

>
>> (4) other comments
>>
>> - three-dimensional spatial region : add "spatial volume" as alternative term?
>> - disposition: add "internally-grounded realizable entity" as alternative term?
>
> To be added as annotation next time I do some work on Reference
> document (which is still in limbo due to Barry editing a older version
> by mistake. Could you add these to a new issue to collect stuff that
> can be got by adding annotations to the reference?

https://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=59

>
>> - role: add "Externally-Grounded Realizable entity" as alternative term? (Note: there is no index entry for role in the reference)
>
> Add a new reference issue, please.

https://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=60

>
>> - what is the bfo specification label annotation property?
>
> It is to keep track of the identifiers I use in the code that generates BFO.

Could we add some annotation properties indicating what this is, or is it intended to disappear before release?

>
>> - is there a minimal set of metadata agreed upon? For example, immaterial entity doesn't have example of usage
>
> I take these from the reference. Possibility 1: There is some example
> and I missed annotating it. Remedy: Have a look yourself to see if I
> missed it. Possibility 2: There weren't any in the reference in which
> case ask Barry to amend (with reference issue). Possibility 3, pull
> up the examples from the subclasses.
>
> Preference?

I would prefer we agree on a minimal set of metadata, and check that those are present before release for each term. I think a minimal set should include label, elucidation, example of usage. See https://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=61


If possible, it would be nice to have a source for the definition (i.e., reference to a paper) and/or point to the right section in the BFO2 reference doc. One thing that as a user I would love, is to produce the ref doc in HTML, add anchors for sections, and then hyperlink directly to relevant part of the spec from the term. So when I am looking at "role" I can get all the info when clicking on http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/bfo/bfo-ref#role for example.

>
>> (5) General remarks
>>
>> (i) would it be possible to use uppercase letter in elucidation" For example, instead of "To say that a is a realizable entity is to say that a is a specifically dependent continuant that inheres in some material entity and is of a type instances of which are realized in processes of a correlated type. [058-001" I think using "To say that A is a realizable entity is to say that A is a specifically dependent continuant that inheres in some material entity and is of A type instances of which are realized in processes of a correlated type. [058-001" or use an other letter than "a"? It is confusing to read in an english sentence.
>
> File a reference issue, please.

https://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=62

[Alan Ruttenberg]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Melanie Courtot <mcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Alan, and the next iteration of the file. Further comments inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Melanie
>
> On 2012-06-18, at 8:40 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Melanie Courtot <mcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Alan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for producing the file. I started reviewing it, and made a list of some issues I found on the way. Note that I didn't have time to look at everything yet, so this list is not exhaustive. I tried to group by type of comment; hope that helps.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Melanie
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) Things unclear
>>>
>>> - elucidation for object_aggregate "a is an object aggregate means: a is a material entity consisting exactly of a plurality of objects as member_parts. [025-002" Based on this, one could classify "human" as object aggregate" (cell are cited as example of usage for object), or "car" (engineered artifacts are another example of usage for objects) which I don't think we want?
>>>
>>> - I am confused by the examples for relational quality: a marriage bond, an instance of love, an obligation between one person and another. Does that imply that marriage, love and obligation are qualities?  I would prefer things like "axial to" (from PATO)
>>>
>>> - what is the difference between zero-dimensional spatial region (elucidation "a point in space") and a zero-dimensional continual fiat boundary (a fiat point whose location is defined in relation to some material entity.)? It seems like the latter should be subclass of the former based on elucidations and examples of usage. For example, I would say that "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona meet" is a point in space.
>>
>> these are straight from the BFO2 Reference, so BFO2 Reference issues
>> should be file for these.
>>
>> I can try to comment not authoritatively.
>> 1. on object aggregate I don't understand this well enough to comment.
>> Have you read the pertinent section of the BFO2 Reference document?
>> (same question for the rest).
>
> I did read it a while back, and I do understand the idea behind object/object aggregate. My concern was that when reading the BFO owl file, based on the definitions of object (a is an object means: a is a material entity which manifests causal unity of one or other of the types CUn listed above &amp; is of a type (a material universal) instances of which are maximal relative to this criterion of causal unity. [024-001) and object aggregate (a is an object aggregate means: a is a material entity consisting exactly of a plurality of objects as member_parts. [025-002) (and examples chosen), it is not obvious why things such as "human" and "car" shall not be considered object aggregates.
> I assume that we intend the OWL file to be somewhat self-standing right? By this I mean that reading definitions in the file should enable users to identify most cases and determine where their terms belong (not taking into account borderline cases, but rather general resources)
>
> If this is true, then I think we should add the sentence "An entity a is an object aggregate if and only if there is a mutually exhaustive and pairwise disjoint partition of a into objects [63]. " to the term object aggregate - not sure if that should be in the elucidation or somewhere else. It may also be worthwhile considering a mechanism allowing to cite relevant sources. In this case, object aggregate relies on definition of partitions made in [63] Thomas Bittner and Barry Smith, “A Theory of Granular Partitions”, in K. Munn and B. Smith (eds.), Applied Ontology: An Introduction, Frankfurt/Lancaster: ontos, 2008, 125-158. OBI used the "definition source" annotation property, maybe something we should consider too?

This can be accomplished by adding an annotation to the BFO2
reference. Please file a BFO OWL issue so I don't forget. Just paste
the above discussion into the issue, please, and assign to me.

>
>> 3. "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New
>> Mexico, and Arizona meet" : There are many frames in which that point
>> is zooming through many points in space. Whereas, no matter what the
>> frame, the quadripoint is always in the same relation to the
>> boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona.
>
> With this additional explanation it does make sense to me now. Maybe add as an editor note?

Will do. I've started a file (same directory as the rest) called
non-reference-annotations.lisp. Format is:

(
(annotation in lispy functional syntax)
:source "who"
:id <id>
)

You can add any other properties using the :key value syntax.
The id is an axiom id for tracking purposes. Put in "_" if you don't
have a specific one in mind. I'll write some code that allocates ids
and rewrites the files later.

https://bfo.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/tools/non-reference-annotations.lisp

-Alan

[Alan Ruttenberg]

Whoops didn't finish. I cut the ones for which issues have been posted (thanks!)

>>>> - what is the bfo specification label annotation property?
>>>
>>> It is to keep track of the identifiers I use in the code that generates BFO.
>>
>> Could we add some annotation properties indicating what this is, or is it intended to disappear before release?

Added. Don't know.

>>>> (ii) could we split example of usages in different annotation properties? e.g. instead of "an atom of element X has the disposition to decay to an atom of element Y\the cell wall is disposed to filter chemicals in endocitosis and exocitosis\certain people have a predisposition to colon cancer\children are innately disposed to categorize objects in certain ways." we would have 3 different annotations "example of usage"
>>>
>>> On the list.

Done now.


-Alan

[Leonard Jacuzzo]

Hi Alan et al.

I have been working on the Relations doc. (I have a preliminary cut available if anyone would like to see it)

 

I noticed a few things a) sometimes 'this means that' is used and in the 'instance_of' case. Sometimes 'Elucidation' is used but '=DF' follows, so it is unclear if it is an elucidation or a definition.

 

Have these things been fixed in some version that I am not aware of?

 

Is it possible for me to get the most correct version  of the Reference...even if incompletely merged?

Best,

LFJ

-Alan

[Alan Ruttenberg]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Leonard Jacuzzo <jac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alan et al.
>
> I have been working on the Relations doc. (I have a preliminary cut
> available if anyone would like to see it)
>
> I noticed a few things a) sometimes 'this means that' is used and in the
> 'instance_of' case. Sometimes 'Elucidation' is used but '=DF' follows, so it
> is unclear if it is an elucidation or a definition.
>
> Have these things been fixed in some version that I am not aware of?
>
> Is it possible for me to get the most correct version  of the
> Reference...even if incompletely merged?

There's one subsequent version that hasn't been checked by me. I'll
try to do this over this over next couple of days. I don't believe
those issues have been resolved in the edits I saw.
-Alan

[Melanie Courtot]

Hi Alan,

For some reason the issue below kept bothering me:

>>
>> - what is the difference between zero-dimensional spatial region (elucidation "a point in space") and a zero-dimensional continual fiat boundary (a fiat point whose location is defined in relation to some material entity.)? It seems like the latter should be subclass of the former based on elucidations and examples of usage. For example, I would say that "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona meet" is a point in space.
>

> 3. "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New
> Mexico, and Arizona meet" : There are many frames in which that point
> is zooming through many points in space. Whereas, no matter what the
> frame, the quadripoint is always in the same relation to the
> boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona.

(1) Whichever the frame considered, the quadripoint is always a point in space as well, right? It may move through space, but it is nonetheless always a zero dimensional spatial region.

(2) It seems to me that saying the quadripoint is defined by its relation to other continuants is similar to saying this anatomical entity is axial to this other one - more of a relational quality than a continuant per se.

Thoughts?
Melanie

[Alan Ruttenberg]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Melanie Courtot <mcou...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Alan,

For some reason the issue below kept bothering me:

>>
>> - what is the difference between zero-dimensional spatial region (elucidation "a point in space") and a zero-dimensional continual fiat boundary (a fiat point whose location is defined in relation to some material entity.)? It seems like the latter should be subclass of the former based on elucidations and examples of usage. For example, I would say that "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona meet" is a point in space.
>

> 3. "the quadripoint where the boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New
> Mexico, and Arizona meet" : There are many frames in which that point
> is zooming through many points in space. Whereas, no matter what the
> frame, the quadripoint is always in the same relation to the
> boundaries of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona.

(1) Whichever the frame considered, the quadripoint is always a point in space as well, right? It may move through space, but it is nonetheless always a zero dimensional spatial region.

Well, I think we would say it is always located-at a point in space. But a different one at different times.

 

(2) It seems to me that saying the quadripoint is defined by its relation to other continuants is similar to saying this anatomical entity is axial to this other one - more of a relational quality than a continuant per se.

Not enough registers functional at the moment. I will try to think about this again in the morning.

 

Thoughts?
Melanie

[Melanie Courtot]

Hi Leonard,

Would you mind submitting your current draft under SVN?
I am trying to review the last file produced by Alan and extra doc would definitively help!

Thanks,
Melanie

[Leonard Jacuzzo]

I will submit it. Just give me a few hrs to make sure it is not an embarrassment.

 

LFJ

[Melanie Courtot]

Sorry, didn't mean to put you under pressure; I thought preliminary cut meant ready for public dev group. I am happy to keep it off SVN until such time you think it is ready.
Would you mind sending me a draft then? No emergency, I won't be looking at bfo.owl anymore today.

Thanks,
Melanie

[Leonard Jacuzzo]

Not a problem. I was just finding time to work on it anyway and you helped me avoid putting it off to watch re-runs of The Rifleman.

 

It is still rather crude, mostly a cut job from the Reference and some reorganization. (I don't want to change anything substantive from the Reference until it is farther along, but it will be a handy document for focusing on just relations.)

I am now adding inverses. 

LFJ