Werner Ceusters

@michaelrabenberg I think that this is a scenario that would make agg2 and agg1 identical: t([0,instance-of,agg1,object-aggregate,time1]). t([0,continuant-part-of,agg1,agg2,time1]). t([0,continuant-part-of,agg2,agg1,time1]). t([0,instance-of,agg1,object-aggregate,time3]). t([-1,continuant-part-of,agg1,agg2,time3]). t([0,exists-throughout,agg1,time2]). t([0,exists-throughout,agg2,time2]). 'exists-throughout' is a BFO extension predicate that guarantees...

I was saying that with your proposed axiom, agg1 and agg2 in the model using all of what is in the https://github.com/BFO-ontology/BFO-2020/issues/146#issuecomment-3476683959 should not be identical. But my reasoner can't...

Re "fall victim to open/closed world ...." We probably mean the same thing in this case. I used 'closed' because when programming in Prolog as I do, then that is...

Michael, I converted your axiom to CNF and noticed this one as one of the generated clauses: [[-1,'first-instant-of',B,C],[-1,'instance-of',A,'temporal-instant',A],[-1,precedes,A,C],[-1,precedes,B,A],[0,'occurrent-part-of',B,C]] (you can read the '-1' 4-tuples as IF 3-tuples and the '0'...