Class label: entity

Editor note:

BFO 2 Reference: In all areas of empirical inquiry we encounter general terms of two sorts. First are general terms which refer to universals or types:animaltuberculosissurgical procedurediseaseSecond, are general terms used to refer to groups of entities which instantiate a given universal but do not correspond to the extension of any subuniversal of that universal because there is nothing intrinsic to the entities in question by virtue of which they – and only they – are counted as belonging to the given group. Examples are: animal purchased by the Emperortuberculosis diagnosed on a Wednesdaysurgical procedure performed on a patient from Stockholmperson identified as candidate for clinical trial #2056-555person who is signatory of Form 656-PPVpainting by Leonardo da VinciSuch terms, which represent what are called ‘specializations’ in [81

Editor note:

Entity doesn't have a closure axiom because the subclasses don't necessarily exhaust all possibilites. For example Werner Ceusters 'portions of reality' include 4 sorts, entities (as BFO construes them), universals, configurations, and relations. It is an open question as to whether entities as construed in BFO will at some point also include these other portions of reality. See, for example, 'How to track absolutely everything' at http://www.referent-tracking.com/_RTU/papers/CeustersICbookRevised.pdf

Sub classes:
Editor note:
BFO 2 Reference: Continuant entities are entities which can be sliced to yield parts only along the spatial dimension, yielding for example the parts of your table which we call its legs, its top, its nails. ‘My desk stretches from the window to the door. It has spatial parts, and can be sliced (in space) in two. With respect to time, however, a thing is a continuant.’ [60, p. 240

Editor note:
Continuant doesn't have a closure axiom because the subclasses don't necessarily exhaust all possibilites. For example, in an expansion involving bringing in some of Ceuster's other portions of reality, questions are raised as to whether universals are continuants

Editor note:
BFO 2 Reference: every occurrent that is not a temporal or spatiotemporal region is s-dependent on some independent continuant that is not a spatial region

Editor note:
BFO 2 Reference: s-dependence obtains between every process and its participants in the sense that, as a matter of necessity, this process could not have existed unless these or those participants existed also. A process may have a succession of participants at different phases of its unfolding. Thus there may be different players on the field at different times during the course of a football game; but the process which is the entire game s-depends_on all of these players nonetheless. Some temporal parts of this process will s-depend_on on only some of the players.

Editor note:
Occurrent doesn't have a closure axiom because the subclasses don't necessarily exhaust all possibilites. An example would be the sum of a process and the process boundary of another process.

Editor note:
Simons uses different terminology for relations of occurrents to regions: Denote the spatio-temporal location of a given occurrent e by 'spn[e]' and call this region its span. We may say an occurrent is at its span, in any larger region, and covers any smaller region. Now suppose we have fixed a frame of reference so that we can speak not merely of spatio-temporal but also of spatial regions (places) and temporal regions (times). The spread of an occurrent, (relative to a frame of reference) is the space it exactly occupies, and its spell is likewise the time it exactly occupies. We write 'spr[e]' and `spl[e]' respectively for the spread and spell of e, omitting mention of the frame.


If you find bugs or if you have ideas to improve the Open Energy Platform, you are welcome to add your comments to the existing issues on GitHub.
You can also fork the project and get involved.

Please note that the platform is still under construction and therefore the design of this page is still highly volatile!