--
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/CAHM_EAuXJvtGk43K9D1cMnb70h-HGZ2Purgx1q%3D-McU2w%3Dii4Q%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CAN9AifscVndTSEDwhvoNTCB0Qknbe%3Dgi%3DuN04bDbf58U%3DrA4eA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CALGFikeb1x0J_B1nd9EzsVCsTBBJVbKhdsFzW6fEEPEofogxmg%40mail.gmail.com.
I don't think making the reasoner too slow is ever a reason to remove an axiom from a reference ontology.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CAN9AifvyBjsonOKwGFDtQ9hgRtf_khcJngKjtF1my0Mv5e6bLg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CALGFikca0xy%2ByPoOrSBx9QPKkeJnUquiOxN3aHiCaOKaGmoikw%40mail.gmail.com.
I am wondering why in the current OWL version of BFO 2020'occurrent part of' is not marked as "reflexive"
According to the definition :b 'proper occurrent part of' c =Def.b 'occurrent part of' c & b and c are not identical [005-BFO]the key difference between'occurrent part of' and 'proper occurrent part of'is exactly the reflexivity feature.I also do not understand why in the OWL version the former is marked as transitive and the latter isn't.
Barry, Alan, could you explain?Thanks!Stefan--Stefan Schulz
Univ.-Prof. Dr. med.Institute for Medical lnformatics, Statistics and Documentation
Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2/5
A-8036 Graz, Austria
Tel: +43 316 385 16939 | +43 699 150 96 270
The reason not to have reflexivity is because it is almost always leads to incoherency (in the formal sense, i.e a reasoner will entail unsatisfiable classes). This is the case for occurrent-part-of, which has range occurrent. Everything in the universe will be inferred to be part of an occurrent, including all continuants.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CAN9AifscVndTSEDwhvoNTCB0Qknbe%3Dgi%3DuN04bDbf58U%3DrA4eA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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/CAHM_EAt%3DHVSUwLPx7A%2B-X3XaVY7ZCqn51VmTO8miNeDt6WWKaw%40mail.gmail.com.
Chris, Michael,The reason not to have reflexivity is because it is almost always leads to incoherency (in the formal sense, i.e a reasoner will entail unsatisfiable classes). This is the case for occurrent-part-of, which has range occurrent. Everything in the universe will be inferred to be part of an occurrent, including all continuants.In my small ontology attached, the inferences are computed as expected only if I leave domain and range unconstrained. As soon as I add bfo:occurrent as domain and range constraints, exactly what you describe, happens (with ELK and HERMIT).Can you provide a logical explanation for this?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CAFKQJ8nhrxV5byFLabMrLcTdxj3b9CzSoGc9jfMNgRLTkYjQCg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CAHM_EAtgHrS6-Nc9dAke5OjidAiVJDBSG6iVz9f_6frSoPDJVQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CAFKQJ8n9x5hmj2W6AYERrkTOHGY4sj_W2z_46MY61EHBgjNkQA%40mail.gmail.com.