Another proposed modification of BFO2 that will ease adoption [important]

Skip to first unread message

Alan Ruttenberg

Jun 10, 2014, 11:28:41 PM6/10/14
to BFO Development Mailing List, BFO OWL Development
I would like to assert inverses:

(abbreviating aat = at all times, ast = at some times)

inheres in aat / bearer of ast
role of aat/has role ast
disposition of aat/has disposition ast
function aat/has function ast

The argument is that first, in all of the aat cases there is no ast relation because it is equivalent. If a dependent continuant inheres in an independent continuant, then the the whole of the dependents existence it has/will - that's because dependent continuants don't "migrate" and because "dependent" in the sense used in BFO is "existentially dependent".

In the case of bearer of ast, this is the common case. It the latter were the common case it would appear that independent continuants and dependent continuants were equally dependent on each other. In addition, following the logic above, it's clear that x bearer of y ast => y bearer of x ast.

Making this change will remove one more hurdle for adoption of BFO2 without compromising the semantics.

I would like to act soon on this and my previous proposal about having the preferred label of some properties not have the temporal qualification, using an alternative label for the temporally qualified label.

I would like to make a decision on these two issues asap and so need to hear from others in the group soon, and can schedule a call if we can't get sufficient consensus by email.


Ramona Walls

Jun 12, 2014, 12:03:38 PM6/12/14
to Alan Ruttenberg, BFO Development Mailing List, BFO OWL Development
I support asserting the inverse relations, as well as your earlier proposal to have primarly labels of appropriate terms not include temporal qualifications. I am happy to see working relations incorporated into the BFO.


Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D.
Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona
Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bfo-owl-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Jie Zheng

Jun 24, 2014, 11:37:00 AM6/24/14
Same as Ramona.


Melanie Courtot

Jun 24, 2014, 6:40:48 PM6/24/14
to Jie Zheng,, Alan Ruttenberg,
In the below, you say " it's clear that x bearer of y ast => y bearer of x ast." 
It doesn't seem clear to me, could you clarify? 


Mélanie Courtot

Research associate

Brinkman Lab, MBB Department, Simon Fraser University, 

Hsiao lab, BC Public Health Microbiology & Reference Laboratory,

Rm SSB7121, 8888 University Drive

Burnaby, BC, Canada, V5A 1S6

Alan Ruttenberg

Jun 24, 2014, 11:03:27 PM6/24/14
to Melanie Courtot, Jie Zheng, BFO OWL Development, BFO Development Mailing List
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Melanie Courtot <> wrote:
In the below, you say " it's clear that x bearer of y ast => y bearer of x ast." 
It doesn't seem clear to me, could you clarify? 

Thanks for catching the mistake. I'm trying to remember what I intended to write. 
I think that  x bearer of y ast => y inheres_in x aat
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages