W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Evidence

From: Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:04:42 -0700
Message-Id: <7727330F-4127-4D50-B188-1FE0C416E047@fruitfly.org>
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, samwald@gmx.at, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:

> Which simplifies things enormously and means that busy, practical  
> biologists don't have to keep wondering whether the Krebs cycle or  
> a computer program is a continuant or an occurrent

Why would a busy, practical biologist ever wonder if a computer  
program was a continuant or occurrent?

I'll bet the busy practical biologists that build the Gene Ontology  
didn't spend much time debating whether or not tricarboxylic acid  
cycle belonged in the biological process hierarchy - they just put it  
there. Similarly with the OBO chemical entity ontology and  
tricarboxylic acid. Of course, neither had either BFO or the  
continuant-occurrent distinction at the back of their mind, the  
distinction was more up the mid-upper level, ie the roots of the  
respective domain ontologies (as well as just common sense). It  
happens that BFO happens to match this very nicely - which perhaps  
reinforces your point that it's the mid-upper level distinctions that  
matter (although I may be wrong - your position would seem to be that  
we can mush together the chemical entity continuants and the  
processes they participate in).

It's unfortunate that you keep choosing bad examples to back up your  
claims - there are actually better ones. If you do jump back into the  
fray (hope you do), try a gnarly embryological development example.  
Or perhaps something to do with qualities...
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 23:05:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:28 UTC