Use of continuant part of and occurrent part of

[wdduncan]

In the OWL version, the logical definition for continuant includes the (local) axiom 'continuant part of' only continuant. Since the continuant part of relation can only hold between continuants, I am wondering what work this axiom is intended to do. It seems redundant. Also, I expected to see a similar 'occurrent part of' only occurrent axiom in the logical definition of occurrent. However, there isn't one. It isn't wrong, but just makes me wonder why.

There is also not a generic part of relation. I assume this omission is intentional. Having the part of relation would permit local restrictions to be placed on the continuant and occurrent classes. E.g.:
continuant 'part of' only continuant
occurrent 'part of' only occurrent

[alanruttenberg]

I'm assuming you are looking at bfo-core.

There's no 'part of' because the continuant relation is a temporalized version (some time) and the occurrent version is not.

As you say, the other issues are not mistakes, just redundant, not parallel. I'll look into cleaning this up in a future release.

[wdduncan]

I'm assuming you are looking at bfo-core.

Yes. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/bfo/2020/bfo-core.owl

There's no 'part of' because the continuant relation is a temporalized version (some time) and the occurrent version is not.

continuant part of at some time is not in bfo-core.

[johnbeve]

continuant part of at some time is not in bfo-core.

Alan is pointing out that the object properties in bfo-core are all qualified to hold at some time which is formally weak and so provide a foundation from which to add the stronger 'all times' child object properties in extension owl files.