Re: [Obi-devel] distance, inheres, data and its transforms. Was: Re: transformation terms from MO

[William B. <Wil...@Dr...>]

On Jan 26, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>
>>> The problem I see with using "inheres" for distance [snip]
>
> On Jan 26, 2007, at 11:27 PM, William Bug wrote:
>
>> I do think distance must encapsulate some sense of the entities  
>> defining it's boundaries.
>
> One would think. I think it might boil down to the fact that  
> inheres != dependence. inheres is a kind of dependence, but not all  
> kinds of dependence have the dependents related by inheres. Snap/ 
> Span paper says:
>
> "Thus dependence alone does not suffice for the relation of  
> inherence to obtain,... "
>
>
> -Alan

Good point.  Thanks for the citation, Alan.  I have an informal sense  
of this distinction, but I really must go back to those BFO articles  
to understand it more concretely.  I've not read some of them in over  
a year - and probably didn't read them a sufficient number of times  
the first time around anyway.

Cheers,
Bill

Bill Bug
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer

Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
www.neuroterrain.org
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
2900 Queen Lane
Philadelphia, PA    19129
215 991 8430 (ph)
610 457 0443 (mobile)
215 843 9367 (fax)


Please Note: I now have a new email - Wil...@Dr...