Re: Issue 1 in bfo: Qualities with values

[b...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Labels: -Type-Defect Type-BFO2-design

Comment #1 on issue 1 by alanrut...@gmail.com: Qualities with values
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=1

(No comment was entered for this change.)

[b...@googlecode.com]

Comment #2 on issue 1 by stes...@gmail.com: Qualities with values
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=1

As far as I understand, in the spirit of BFO, 'blood pressure of 110/70' is
a subtype of 'blood pressure'. There is no distinction between qualities
and their values (such as quatity regions in DOLCE)

- Stefan

[b...@googlecode.com]

Comment #3 on issue 1 by alanrut...@gmail.com: Qualities with values
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=1

there is an odd situation, in that there is no differentia to explicate the
difference between
blood pressure of 110/70 and
blood pressure of 120/80.

[b...@googlecode.com]

Comment #4 on issue 1 by cmung...@gmail.com: Qualities with values
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=1

I think there will need to be some kind of mechanism to allow distnguishing
determinables from determinants, and to allow the differentia to be
specified.

Some experience:

PATO was originally DOLCE-like, with separate hierarchies for attributes
and values. We made it BFO-like in around 2007. This was a bit
controversial, and the move was unpopular with a lot of users. We ended up
allowing the distinction via the back door - we created to obo-subsets, one
for attributes, one for values. These are non-logical annotation assertions
in the OWL. This placated most, but it's an odd situation having
non-logical axioms for something that we expect to be logical.

[b...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Labels: -Type-BFO2-design Type-BFO2-Reference

Comment #5 on issue 1 by alanrut...@gmail.com: Qualities with values
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=1