Add annotations on terms, to papers that are necessary to understand the term - taken from Reference
Opened this issue · 3 comments
From mcour...@gmail.com on June 19, 2012 14:14:53
Melanie says "- elucidation for object_aggregate "a is an object aggregate means: a is a material entity consisting exactly of a plurality of objects as member_parts. [025-002" Based on this, one could classify "human" as object aggregate" (cell are cited as example of usage for object), or "car" (engineered artifacts are another example of usage for objects) which I don't think we want?"
Alan replies "I can try to comment not authoritatively.
- on object aggregate I don't understand this well enough to comment.
Have you read the pertinent section of the BFO2 Reference document?
(same question for the rest)."
Melanie says "I did read it a while back, and I do understand the idea behind object/object aggregate. My concern was that when reading the BFO owl file, based on the definitions of object (a is an object means: a is a material entity which manifests causal unity of one or other of the types CUn listed above & is of a type (a material universal) instances of which are maximal relative to this criterion of causal unity. [024-001) and object aggregate (a is an object aggregate means: a is a material entity consisting exactly of a plurality of objects as member_parts. [025-002) (and examples chosen), it is not obvious why things such as "human" and "car" shall not be considered object aggregates.
I assume that we intend the OWL file to be somewhat self-standing right? By this I mean that reading definitions in the file should enable users to identify most cases and determine where their terms belong (not taking into account borderline cases, but rather general resources)
If this is true, then I think we should add the sentence "An entity a is an object aggregate if and only if there is a mutually exhaustive and pairwise disjoint partition of a into objects [63]. " to the term object aggregate - not sure if that should be in the elucidation or somewhere else. It may also be worthwhile considering a mechanism allowing to cite relevant sources. In this case, object aggregate relies on definition of partitions made in [63] Thomas Bittner and Barry Smith, “A Theory of Granular Partitions”, in K. Munn and B. Smith (eds.), Applied Ontology: An Introduction, Frankfurt/Lancaster: ontos, 2008, 125-158. OBI used the "definition source" annotation property, maybe something we should consider too?"
Alan says "This can be accomplished by adding an annotation to the BFO2
reference. Please file a BFO OWL issue so I don't forget. Just paste
the above discussion into the issue, please, and assign to me."
see https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bfo-owl-devel/s9Uug5QmAws/BjjgLzd1_DkJ
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=63
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on June 29, 2012 13:46:45
Melanie will collate the list of reference/term connections and then we will add it.
Owner: mcour...@gmail.com
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on June 29, 2012 13:47:25
Summary: Add annotations on terms, to papers that are necessary to understand the term - taken from Reference
Status: Accepted
From mcour...@gmail.com on June 29, 2012 14:42:02
Created extra file at https://code.google.com/p/bfo/source/browse/trunk/src/ontology/owl-group/specification/extra-references-annotations.lisp This file will contain extra annotations coming in from the reference. This differentiates it from the file at https://code.google.com/p/bfo/source/browse/trunk/src/ontology/owl-group/specification/non-reference-annotations.lisp which is used for non-reference annotations.