Thank you ! Take your time ! #77
Conversation
| - I'm a little confused about the irreflexive property of the "has member" relation. | ||
| - The relation is specifically designed to exist between items and collections, so what about a collection with only one item in it? | ||
| - Can an object not be classed both as an 'item' and as a 'collection' of only itself? | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think so. For example, you can write {Olivia} and Olivia. And the first one refers to the mathematical set containing the entity Olivia, but the second refers to you. They have very different properties - one is a person, the other a mathematical abstract object (a group). One is in space and time, the other isn't, etc.
| - "has role in modeling" is an asymmetric relationship between information about an entity and the entity of interest. | ||
| - I feel like if the entity of interest is also information, the two could hold a symmetric relationship. | ||
| - Like, does the information in the left circle of a venn diagram not have a role in modeling the right side? | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes! Similarly with a computer modeling itself.
| (e) Inverse Functional | ||
| - "has characteristic" is an inverse-functional relationship between a bearer and the relevant characteristic. | ||
| - I am confused about this object property because I believe many general characteristics can have multiple bearers. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, I think we have a similar point made in the Google Doc
| - Sally_limbloss has_output Limbless_Sally | ||
| - Sally_limbloss occurs_in Wednesday | ||
| - Tuesday precedes Wednesday | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is interesting, it seems it would capture the case where Sally loses all arms and remains entirely without them. We also tried to capture some other cases in Google Doc. The one thing I am not really sure about is the disjunction between Sally_arm and Limbless_Sally. I am used to see the relation holding between classes, not instances.
| - Alternatively: | ||
| - John_childhood precedes John_adulthood | ||
| - John_adulthood precedes John_goldenyears | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am a bit worried about JohnStory occurs_in John, perhaps you could use participates_in. And I like precedes more than causally upstreams. But overall it seems to work.
| - Gall_marriage occurs_in 3_years | ||
| - Goofus partner_in Goo_marriage | ||
| - Gallant partner_in Gall_marriage | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Notice that RO's "partner_in" is not really what we mean by "partner" here. Moreover, you are saying that goofus is a partner with the marriage. I guess you rather want to say that they are partner with someone during the marriage. And again I am not sure about occurs_in. But it seems to work besides that
| (d) Mexico City | ||
| - object aggregate made up of objects like inhabitants, buildings, streets, lights, smells, and et cetera. | ||
| - What I am confused about here is whether or not an object aggregate must be aggregated of all the same object, as this is the case with the examples listed in chapter 5. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think so, you can have an aggregate of apples and pears I would say.
| - My take is informed by page 112 of the BFO textbook. | ||
| ... | ||
| - Giacomo pointed out how the classes of material and immaterial entities are disjoint, according to BFO. | ||
| - If this is the case, my answers to both (a) and (b) above are false... am stuck now |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are disjoint but this doesn't mean that they can't have each other as parts. So a is definitely true: I can have a point as part. But I believe b is false. Immaterial entities in BFO are things like points, lines, etc. rather than tings like abstract entities or imaginary friends. These would rather be generically dependent continuants. In the definition of immaterial entities I believe it is explicitly said that they cannot have material entities as parts. Because imagine me being a part of something like a line. It doesn't make much sense. I can be located in it, but not be a part of it.
| - True: a fully immaterial site, one not bounded to anything 'out there', cannot exist in the world. | ||
| - I am under the impression that a site is a 'de jure' entity; it only exists because we pay special attention to it. | ||
| - We cannot demarcate a site around something wholly immaterial. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure about this. The second part of the BFO definition doesn't seem to be really clear on this and may allow for e to be false. But I really think it's up to you and I understand why you would like to have it as true.
| - John participates_in John_run | ||
| - John_runtime instance_of generically dependent continuant | ||
| ... | ||
| - John_runpace instance_of process profile |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Notice that process profile is not a part of BFO anymore
| ... | ||
| - John_runnerhigh is_a quality | ||
| - John has_characteristic John_runnerhigh | ||
| ^^ How would I add temporal parameters to this, clarifying that John only has a runners high after John_run is completed? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You probably need to order processes one after the other, and then add something like a zero-dimensional temporal region or one-dimensional temporal region and say that the property is had by John only there. Take a look at what we did on the google doc
No description provided.