RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote

[Charles D Turnitsa <CTurnits@xxxxxxx>]

I see what you are saying, however what if a process has different portions - do those portions (which I assume are perdurants, to use the phrase from BFO) need to have an identified time index?  Here is my example -

 Frank is in the contagious phase of his illness.

 The illness is a process, the contagious phase is a subprocess (which is certainly true of the illness process, but not true of the entire life of the illness process).

 Is it not more accurate to say "Frank is in the contagious phase of the illness, for the first two weeks"?

Chuck

-----ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----

>To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
><ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent by: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: 01/23/2006 11:11AM
>Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class --  Please vote
>
>We need to time-index the part-of relation for continuants (e.g. 
>objects), because the latter can have different parts at different 
>times. 'This molecule is part of Michael West's nose' is not 
>determinately true or false; it becomes determinately true or false 
>when we add a time-index to the whole assertion.
>
>There is nothing analogous in the realm of properties: 'This missile 
>movement is part of the Second World War' is determinately true, or 
>false, independently of when it is asserted.
>
>BS
>
>At 05:03 PM 1/23/2006, you wrote:
>
>>Some comments below concerning the discussion about parts of
>objects,
>>processes, etc.
>>
>>Original comments below by Barry Smith:
>>-----ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
>> >The details are supplied in full in:
>> >
>> >  http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/SNAP_SPAN.pdf
>> >
>> >Basically, all instance-level x part_of y
>> >assertions for 3D objects are indexed by times.
>> >This is not necessary for 4D objects, since
>> >processes do not gain and lose parts over time.
>>
>>My comment here, is concerning processes.  I can envision a 4D
>object
>>(process) having component parts (sub-processes?).  In that case,
>should we
>>not also concerning indexing x part_of y (where y is a process) also
>by
>>time?  The alternative seems to suggest that all processes (and
>>sub-processes) are without time boundary.
>>
>>Chuck Turnitsa
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
>>To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
>>http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
>>Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
>>Community Wiki: 
>>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordina
>tingWG
>
>
> 
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
>To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
>Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
>Community Wiki:
>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinat
>ingWG
>

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (01)