- From: Smith, Barry <phismith@buffalo.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:33:15 +0200
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, samwald@gmx.at
- Cc: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@idi.ntnu.no>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
At 02:29 PM 6/18/2007, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >On Jun 12, 2007, at 3:53 PM, samwald@gmx.at wrote: > >> >>Hi Waclaw, >> >> >>>Matthias, if you look carefully at BFO, you'll see that roles are >>>entities. This means that evidences, as roles, are entities. >> >>Of course. I just wanted to differentiate that an experiment is not >>an instance of any class called 'evidence' (in other words, an >>experiment 'is not' evidence). Instead, it should be associated >>with an 'evidence-role'. > >The only problem with this is that roles inhere in continuants rather >than in occurrents. One way around this is not to say that evidence >is an experiment, but rather the results of an experiment. This seems exactly right to me -- evidence has to be a continuant, not only because it is a role, but also because it has to be provided (gained) and then used (conceivably by many separate groups in many separate endeavours). BS
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 10:09:17 UTC