Entities with multiple definitions
Opened this issue · 1 comments
From dosu...@gmail.com on November 02, 2012 22:05:26
A number of entities in BFO2 have multiple definitions associated with them. e.g:
'specifically dependent continuant' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000020 )
'proper part of occurrent' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000138 )
'proper part of continuant at some time' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000175 )
'temporal part of' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000139 )
'has temporal part' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000121 )
Shouldn't all entities only have a single definition?
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=129
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on November 15, 2012 12:58:36
4 of them are technical bugs that I can fix in code. The first needs a decision. Here's what's happened in each case. r
'specifically dependent continuant' ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000020 )
In this case there is an extra definition for a subtype that isn't named in the ontology.
so def1 is of specifically dependent continuant and
def2 is of relational specifically dependent continuant
My preference would be that if a definition of the relational case is
given, that we have the term, or we remove the definition. Others?
--
proper part of continuant
One definition is explicit, one is from the inverse, automatically
included. This is a bug in the code generation. I add the definition
from the inverse when no direct definition is applied. But I should
add it if there's already a definition.
--
proper part of continuant at some time
same as above
--
temporal part of
The annotation for proper temporal part of is misplaced on temporal part of. Will fix.
--
consequence of above