Issue 21 in bfo: immaterial entity

8 views
Skip to first unread message

b...@googlecode.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2012, 7:09:36 PM3/1/12
to bfo-d...@googlegroups.com
Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 21 by haen...@ohsu.edu: immaterial entity
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=21

Is it possible to include 'immaterial entity' as a sibling class
to 'material entity'. Ideally site and boundaries would be subclasses
of 'immaterial entity'.

In order to have anatomical space and anatomical boundaries classify as
immaterial anatomical entities this would be nice to have. Barry suggested
that the anatomical spaces should be sites. The anatomical boundaries would
then be subclass of 'object boundary'? Or is 'object boundary' meant to be
material? The examples given for boundaries can be construed as either
material or immaterial. Can you tell me, are they intended to be sites of
gene expression?

For example, here is how we are currently defining material anatomical
entity:
'material entity' and ('is part of@en' some organism) and ('has quality@en'
some mass)

ideally we'd have the parallel construction:
'immaterial entity' and ('is located in@en' some organism) and not ( 'has
quality@en' some mass)

I am sure this has been discussed, please let me know how we might
accommodate this using the new bfo.

Cheers
Melissa

b...@googlecode.com

unread,
Apr 29, 2012, 5:13:52 AM4/29/12
to bfo-d...@googlegroups.com
Updates:
Status: Done

Comment #1 on issue 21 by janna.ha...@gmail.com: immaterial entity
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=21

Immaterial entity is in the BFO 2 Reference and in the BFO 2 OWL working
version.

b...@googlecode.com

unread,
May 1, 2012, 4:11:59 AM5/1/12
to bfo-d...@googlegroups.com
Updates:
Status: Started

Comment #2 on issue 21 by alanrut...@gmail.com: immaterial entity
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=21

Reverted status to open. Janna correctly notes that the class hierarchy in
BFO2 reference reflects the desired class hierarchy but the other questions
regarding relations are not verified.
"BFO 2 OWL working version" is non-referring.
The intended referent is, I believe,
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/source/browse/trunk/src/ontology/owl-schulz/bfo.owl
r215

b...@googlecode.com

unread,
May 1, 2012, 4:12:59 AM5/1/12
to bfo-d...@googlegroups.com
Updates:
Labels: -Type-Defect Type-BFO2-Reference

Comment #3 on issue 21 by alanrut...@gmail.com: immaterial entity
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=21

(No comment was entered for this change.)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages