Disjointness in the BMO

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Disjointness in the BMO

Julian Vincent-4
What’s the downside of making Continuants and Occurrents no longer disjoint?

Julian Vincent

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Disjointness in the BMO

Michael DeBellis-2
Well, I'm a skeptic about what the upside is of using BFO at all and I'm not an expert on BFO  but my understanding is that Conintuant is the class for all things that exist in time and space, so atoms, buildings, animals,  locations, etc. where as Occurant is the class for non-physical processes such as a software development process model, the Krebs cycle in biology, natural selection in biology,  etc. If you make those two classes not be disjoint you are removing one of the most fundamental distinctions in BFO and you may as well just start from owl:Thing (although as I said at least IMO that's not such a bad idea, although I'm sure many people will disagree).

But I'm far from an expert on BFO so if others disagree please chime in. Also, this list is primarily for questions about using Protege, if you have questions about BFO I'm assuming there are other lists and user groups where you can find people who know it much better than I do. One place where I know some BFO experts (including once in a while Barry Smith) hang out is the Google group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ontolog-forum  Although you will also find other BFO skeptics there like John Sowa. 

I just did some digging and I think this is the forum that you want if you have more BFO questions:  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bfo-discuss   Also, if you haven't seen this yet, you should probably check out this site: http://basic-formal-ontology.org/   

Cheers,
Michael

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 6:04 AM Julian Vincent <[hidden email]> wrote:
What’s the downside of making Continuants and Occurrents no longer disjoint?

Julian Vincent

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Disjointness in the BMO

Julian Vincent-4
Many thanks, Michael. Useful and decisive thoughts.
Julian

On 20 Nov 2019, at 20:04, Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, I'm a skeptic about what the upside is of using BFO at all and I'm not an expert on BFO  but my understanding is that Conintuant is the class for all things that exist in time and space, so atoms, buildings, animals,  locations, etc. where as Occurant is the class for non-physical processes such as a software development process model, the Krebs cycle in biology, natural selection in biology,  etc. If you make those two classes not be disjoint you are removing one of the most fundamental distinctions in BFO and you may as well just start from owl:Thing (although as I said at least IMO that's not such a bad idea, although I'm sure many people will disagree).

But I'm far from an expert on BFO so if others disagree please chime in. Also, this list is primarily for questions about using Protege, if you have questions about BFO I'm assuming there are other lists and user groups where you can find people who know it much better than I do. One place where I know some BFO experts (including once in a while Barry Smith) hang out is the Google group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ontolog-forum  Although you will also find other BFO skeptics there like John Sowa. 

I just did some digging and I think this is the forum that you want if you have more BFO questions:  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bfo-discuss   Also, if you haven't seen this yet, you should probably check out this site: http://basic-formal-ontology.org/   

Cheers,
Michael

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 6:04 AM Julian Vincent <[hidden email]> wrote:
What’s the downside of making Continuants and Occurrents no longer disjoint?

Julian Vincent

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user