On 02/03/2011 01:34 PM, Yu Lin wrote:
I think in BFO, the classes in continuant has no temporal part.
Indeed, a BFO continuant is "An entity [bfo:Entity] that
exists in full at any time in which it exists at all, persists
through time while maintaining its identity and has no temporal
BFO processes have temporal parts.
However the instance of a continuant can't avoid the fact the it bears
a temporal stamp.
In BFO, I think, what is born is qualities. You're likely not
suggesting there are temporal stamp qualities born by continuants,
right? However, I'm not sure what you mean, precisely, with 'bears
a temporal stamp'.
In the paper :http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46
There are two concerns for "part_of" relations:
1. Part_of between instances. (c part_of c1 at t and c1 part_of c2
at t, then also c part_of c2 at t)
I infer that if ( c part_of c1 at t1 and c1 part_of c2 at t2)
there is no c part_of c2, because of the time difference.
Your inference is wrong, though it's stated in such a way that I may
be wrong about what you actually infer.
From c part of c1 at t1 and c1 part of c2 at t2 you should rather
not infer that it is not the case than c part of c2 (at t1 or t2).
But, if that's what you mean, it's right that it should neither be
inferred that c is part of c2 (at t1 or t2).
Here I think it is C(c)@t
I fail to see how this would follow. To my intuition, Pat's 3D+1
case (time as an extra argument in the relation) is more
2. Part_of between classes.
- 2.1 Part_of between continuant (C part_of C1 if and only if
any instance of C at any time is an instance-level part of some
instance of C1 at that time)
It seems that if there is a C(c@t) is part_of C1(c1@t);
then C part_of C1 (and there is no temporal part)
Now it's getting into what Pat classified as the 4D case, but also
here I fail to see how it follows. There's talk about being an
instance at a time, which again seems more like the 3D+1 case
(C(c,t), or C@t(c) rather than C(t)@t).
There are further C temporary_part_of C1 (every C
exists at some time in its existence as part of some C1)
C initial_part_of C1 (every
C is such that it begins to exist as part of some instance of C1).
- 2.2 Part_of between process (P part_of P1 if and only if any
instance of P is an instance-level part of some instance of P1)
temporal parts are included in process, so it is easier
to get the meaning.
Cct here if we use R(a,b) to reform:
It should be R(C,c) R=instance relationship
All c at a time t is a instance of C:
c1 at time t1 is an instance of C;
c2 at time t2 is an instance of C;
We got R(C,c@t)
Or rather R(C, c, t) = R@t(C, c). I think -- but do not insist --
the definitions are thought to be interpreted as
c1 (is instance at t) of C
(c1 at t) is an instance of C
as you suggest here, or
(c1 is an instance of C) at t
as you suggest further above.
Since C as continuant has not temporal part:
So 1. C(c@t) is true. It means: c at time t is instance of C.
Agree that C(c@t) means (c at time t) is instance of C, but I don't
believe that's what they meant. Also, I don't see C(c@t) following
from C(c, t) (which is what I think the statement is) unless you
have a way of linking c and c@t (they're different entities). But
I'm logically disabled, so can be wrong here, too.
And 3. C(c)@t is true. It means: at time t there is a c, which is instance of C.
Literally, it means that at time t the proposition that c is an
instance of C is true.
But 2. C@t(c) is true only when C is a process class.
C@t(c) is C(c, t). So Process(p, t) is fine but, say, Human(h, t)