Menu
▾
▴
#706 Concretizes Relations
During BFO pre-Graz version transition, we replaced:
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000294 is_concretization_of
by
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000059 concretizes ('concretizes at some time' in BFO 2.0)
and
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000297 is_concretized_as
by
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000058 is concretized as ('concretized by at some time' in BFO 2.0)
Discussion on 2014/5/19 OBI-dev call: The Graz release of BFO uses these IDs for temporized relations, so we can't really use those IDs any more. These are high-level terms, above OBI scope, and should be put somewhere more general such as RO.
The labels of the relations in OBI and BFO are different and BFO pre-graz does not contain the definitions.
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000294 is_concretization_of
Is a relationship between a generically dependent continuant and a specifically dependent continuant. A generically dependent continuant may inhere in more than one entity. It does so by virtue of the fact that there is, for each entity that it inheres, a specifically dependent concretization of the generically dependent continuant that is specifically dependent. For instance, consider a story, which is an information artifact that inheres in some number of books. Each book bears some quality that carries the story. The relation between this quality and the generically dependent continuant is that the former is the concretization of the latter.
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000297 is_concretized_as
Definition: Is a relationship between a specifically dependent continuant and a generically dependent continuant. A generically dependent continuant may inhere in more than one entity. It does so by virtue of the fact that there is, for each entity that it inheres, a specifically dependent concretization of the generically dependent continuant that is specifically dependent. For instance, consider a story, which is an information artifact that inheres in some number of books. Each book bears some quality that carries the story. The relation between this quality and the generically dependent continuant is that the former is the concretization of the latter.
For submission terms to RO, I propose to use BFO pre-Graze labels and OBI definitions which are:
concretizes: a relationship between a generically dependent continuant and a specifically dependent continuant. A generically dependent continuant may inhere in more than one entity. It does so by virtue of the fact that there is, for each entity that it inheres, a specifically dependent concretization of the generically dependent continuant that is specifically dependent. For instance, consider a story, which is an information artifact that inheres in some number of books. Each book bears some quality that carries the story. The relation between this quality and the generically dependent continuant is that the former is the concretization of the latter.
(Domain: SDC, Range: GDC)
is concretized as: a relationship between a specifically dependent continuant and a generically dependent continuant. A generically dependent continuant may inhere in more than one entity. It does so by virtue of the fact that there is, for each entity that it inheres, a specifically dependent concretization of the generically dependent continuant that is specifically dependent. For instance, consider a story, which is an information artifact that inheres in some number of books. Each book bears some quality that carries the story. The relation between this quality and the generically dependent continuant is that the former is the concretization of the latter.
(Domain: GDC, Range: SDC)
However, based on the definition, it seems that GDC is conretized as some quality which I thought should be some realizable entity.
Alan also noticed similar issue, see:
https://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=160
Please justify not using the temporal highest cock or taxation
relationship. A sufficient case would show either a situation in which the
relationship as defined is incorrect or one in which if you use the
relationship as it is you would get an incorrect entailment. Creating a new
relationship absent a good reason is simply introducing incompatibility for
no good reason.
-Alan
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, jzheng jzheng24@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
OBI Terms:
#706Another option is to reverse deprecation process.
OBI defines "concretizes" and "is concretized as" as inverses, but the Graz release does not define "concretizes at some time" and "concretized by at some time" as inverses. In general, pairs of "at some time" relations cannot be inverses on the temporalized relations approach. Without those inverses we get different entailments.
We agreed to use atemporal relations for OBI in the recent vote. The "at some time" relations cannot be used because they are not atemporal, and because they do not have the same entailments as the atemporal relations that OBI defined in the first place.
Correction: What I said about the inverses is wrong. In fact "concretized by at some time" is defined as the inverse of "concretizes at some time" in the Graz release. There is no general problem with "as some time" inverses.
Ah, responded too soon. So I didn't forget.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:53 AM, James A. Overton jamesaoverton@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
OBI Terms:
#706On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:07 AM, James A. Overton jamesaoverton@users.sf.net wrote:
If the inverse is added can you prove that there are any different
entailments? This, I think, should be the standard for making decisions.
-Alan
Related
OBI Terms:
#706Discussed with Alan, concretizes relations in BFO 2.0 have same meanings as what OBI concretizes relations mean.
Another option, OBI reuse BFO 2.0 concretizes relations.
I'd prefer to move the examples out of the definitions and into their own annotations. Here I've also tried to say more in the definition itself.
concretizes
is concretized as
Are you making these proposals relative to the BFO2 versions?
If for OBI, then I think the matter of the BFO2 relation usage isn't
settled and should be before changes are made.
The gist of the changes would be acceptable for BFO. I might even inquire
if we can relabel at-some-time relations where the at-all-times relations
would not have have been suggested by the Relations paper to remove the
at-all-time and have that be in the alternative term.
This would be the case for at least concretizes and participates.
-Alan
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:09 AM, James A. Overton jamesaoverton@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
OBI Terms:
#706I'm suggesting improvements to the proposed definitions Jie included at the top of the tracker item. I agree that the issue is not yet settled, and that it's worth discussing the point you raise about changing labels.
I have written to the BFO development groups to solicit their opinion about
the relabeling.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM, James A. Overton jamesaoverton@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
OBI Terms:
#706I submitted these terms to the RO tracker: https://code.google.com/p/obo-relations/issues/detail?id=28
relations have been added in BFO and RO.