Two questions regarding temporalized relations

[Niklas Beckmann]

Dear colleagues,

I would appreciate your input on two problems:

1.

It does not seem to be ideal to have an application analyze the label string of a temporalized relation like

bearer_of_during_Phase1

to work out during which temporal region (here: the temporal region of Phase1) the relations is supposed to hold.

Is there already a solution for this problem that I missed?

If not, do you think it would be a good solution to have an AnnotationProperty for temporalized relations that refers to the URI of an occurrent like Phase1?

2.

Since is_a can't be temporalized, it seems to be necessary to sometimes define temporalized defined classes like this:

Role1_Bearer_during_Phase1(x) = x bearer_of_during_Phase1 Role1

Is this correct or is there a better way to represent that x is a Role_Bearer only during Phase1?

Wouldn't it in this case again make sense have something like the aforementioned AnnotationProperty that links the defined class to the URI of Phase1?

Thank you.

Kind Regards

[Niklas Beckmann]

Sorry, I just realized that the second problem could be avoided by asserting that the instance of Role1 only exists during Phase1. Also, I meant to write instance_of, not is_a.

This example might work:

b instance_of Class1_during_Phase1 =def. b part_of_during_Phase1 c
b instance_of Class1_during_Phase2 =def. b part_of_during_Phase2 c

Is there a better way to represent that b is only an instance of Class1 during Phases 1 and 2?

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BFO Discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bfo-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/16C52923-82F4-4BA6-A679-98C2A4E2E41C%40uni-bonn.de.