Issue 16 in bfo: 'is part of' is not transitive
b...@googlecode.com
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 16 by dosu...@gmail.com: 'is part of' is not transitive
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=16
The 'is part of' object property and its SubProperty 'is physical part of'
do not have the property characteristic - transitive. Please fix this!
b...@googlecode.com
Comment #1 on issue 16 by dosu...@gmail.com: 'is part of' is not transitive
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=16
> Reported by dosu...@gmail.com, Jun 24 (4 days ago)
> The 'is part of' object property and its SubProperty 'is physical part
> of' do not > have the property characteristic - transitive. Please fix
> this!
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=16. 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
Comment #2 on issue 16 by pierregr...@gmail.com: 'is part of' is not
transitive
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=16
Not to object but just wondering what breaks in the absence of an explicit
typing.
by http://bfo.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/ontology/bfo2-relations.owl
is_part_of seems to be an inverse of has_part which is transitive, isn't it
enough?
true the physical variant doesn't seem to be know transitive
b...@googlecode.com
Comment #3 on issue 16 by dosu...@gmail.com: 'is part of' is not transitive
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=16
> is_part_of seems to be an inverse of has_part which is transitive, isn't
> it enough?
It's enough for ontologies that import both relations. But some may not, so
better, I think, to be explicit.
b...@googlecode.com
Comment #4 on issue 16 by pierregr...@gmail.com: 'is part of' is not
transitive
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=16
not trying to be thick nor antagonising, but wouldn't ontologies simply
import the whole of BFO ?
b...@googlecode.com
Status: Done
Owner: janna.ha...@gmail.com
Comment #5 on issue 16 by janna.ha...@gmail.com: 'is part of' is not
transitive
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=16
'is part of' is transitive in current working version of BFO 2 in OWL
b...@googlecode.com
Comment #6 on issue 16 by alanrut...@gmail.com: 'is part of' is not
transitive
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=16
Pierre, no, it is possible to import just a portion of BFO and I concur
with David that therefore having the explicit assertion is of benefit.
However: I have change the status of this issue back to 'started' pending a
decision process for making closure decisions.
"current working version of BFO 2 in OWL" is non-referring.
Intended referent is, I believe,
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/source/browse/trunk/src/ontology/owl-schulz/bfo.owl
r215