Hi, Waclaw, (01)
I think I might be wrong in using the symbol here. (02)
If you state that C(c,t) = C@t(c) and it means: c at time t is
instance of C. I think there is no big difference between what in our
When you say :"> c1 (is instance at t) of C",
it seems that you denied that c1 as an instance has no timestamp.
Can I infer from "c1 (is instance at t) of C" to say that, c1 (is
instance at t2) of C2? (04)
Back to Pat's statement:
2. Attach it to the relation as an extra argument, and call the
relation a 'fluent': R(a, b, t) This gives you the classical AI/KR
approach which used to be called the situation calculus, where one
quantifies over times in the KR language itself, but the object terms
are still thought of as denoting 3D rather than 4D entities. Call this
--- what the t denotes is not clear here. (05)
And you given R@t(a,b), which is clearer than above,
dose it mean that:
1. at time t1, there is a R between a and b is true.
2. at time t2, there is a R' between a and b is also true.? (06)
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Waclaw Kusnierczyk <waku@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 01:34 PM, Yu Lin wrote:
> Thanks Waclaw,
> 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 part".
> 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 appropriate.
> 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
> 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
> rather than
> (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) is not?
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)