it seems that you denied that c1 as an instance has timestamp. But
not "it seems that you denied that c1 as an instance has no
It should be:
When you say :"> c1 (is instance at t) of C",
it seems that you denied that c1 as an instance has timestamp.
Can I infer from "c1 (is instance at t) of C" to say that, c1 (is
instance at t2) of C2? (02)
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Yu Lin <linikujp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi, Waclaw,
> I think I might be wrong in using the symbol here.
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.?
> 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 (05)