[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but bothneeded

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:49:24 +0200
Message-id: <466C63D4.2000907@xxxxxxxxxxx>
paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:    (01)

> The lung cell deterioration is obviously a state,     (02)

Obviously or not.    (03)

If by 'deterioration' you mean the process by which the cell 
deteriorates, the process is trivially an occurrent.    (04)

If by 'deterioration' you mean reduced (according to some criteria) 
quality of the cell, then it is trivially a continuant (a quality of a 
continuant, a dependent continuant, I guess).    (05)

As in the case of 'avalanche', it all depends on what you mean.  And 
whether you a priori distinguish occurrents and continuants, of course.    (06)

vQ    (07)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>