From: Chris M. <CJM...@lb...> - 2010-10-28 01:14:47
|
On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Adam M. Goldstein wrote: > Something like that. In the initial discussion, Chris seemed accept > the idea that derives from requires the destruction of the earlier > entity. On the strength of Chris' authority in such matters, I felt > confident that this really is so :) You shouldn't be so confident - I was actually stating that derives_from does *not* require the destruction of the earlier entity, but on closer reading of the paper, I see this view isn't supported. As you point out: > Here is the description of derives_from from http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#reference > . NB the last sentence: > > \begin{quote} > Derivation as a relation between instances. The temporal relation of > derivation is more complex. Transformation, on the instance level, > is just the relation of identity: each adult is identical to some > child existing at some earlier time. Derivation on the instance- > level is a relation holding between non-identicals. More precisely, > it holds between distinct material continuants when one succeeds the > other across a temporal divide in such a way that at least a > biologically significant portion of the matter of the earlier > continuant is inherited by the later. Thus we will have axioms to > the effect that from c derives_from c1 we can infer that c and c1 > are not identical and that there is some instant of time t such that > c1 exists only prior to and c only subsequent to t. We will also be > able to infer that the spatial region occupied by c as it begins to > exist at t overlaps with the spatial region occupied by c1 as it > ceases to exist in the same instant. > \end{quote} > > This last sentence suggests that the "parent entity" ceases to exist > when the new one cones in, presumably after it transmits it's > biological material to the new one. In fact the final two sentences imply this. |