Werner Ceusters

> Werner, is it that you want this instead? > > "If a occurrent-part-of b then if **there's a time at which** a is an instance of process then **there's...

> I suppose it could also be rewritten as > > ``` > (forall (p q t) > (if (occurrent-part-of p q) > (if (instance-of p process t)) > (instance-of...

Good. One might also consider to do that for all relations which have at least one continuant as argument.

> I don't consider fiat boundaries to necessarily be boundaries of material objects in the sense of edges, or necessarily immediately adjacent to a material entity. The north pole is...

JB > Well then allow me to stand in the way. > WC > > I don't consider fiat boundaries to necessarily be boundaries of material objects in the sense...

BS: (note 'BS' stands here for 'Barry Smith', not for 'bull shit'). > GEOID https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid "According to Gauss, who first described it, it is the "mathematical figure of the Earth",...

> Here's a less disruptive change: Just change continuant fiat boundary to fiat immaterial entity. Fiat point, line, and surface stay the same. Subclassing below is for some other ontology....

> Late to the party, but a few points about the relabeling suggestion: > > Replacing "continuant fiat boundary" with "fiat immaterial entity" would seem to carry the implicature, given...

> Barry has explicitly said that sites can be fiat. Came up in a discussion of sites of geopolitical entities. Did he mean literally 'a site in total' or 'fiat...

> From: Werner Ceusters ***@***.***> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 9:28 AM To: BFO-ontology/BFO-2020 ***@***.***> Cc: Barry Smith ***@***.***>; Assign ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [BFO-ontology/BFO-2020] Questions about continuant fiat ... WC:...