@prefix : . @prefix owl: . @prefix rdf: . @prefix xml: . @prefix xsd: . @prefix rdfs: . @prefix skos: . @prefix dcterms: . @base . rdf:type owl:Ontology ; owl:versionIRI ; owl:imports ; dcterms:abstract ""@en ; dcterms:contributor "Adham Hashibon, University College of London, UK" , "Georg Schmitz, Access, DE" , "Gerhard Goldbeck, Goldbeck Consulting Ltd, UK" , "Jesper Friis, SINTEF, NO" ; dcterms:creator "Emanuele Ghedini, University of Bologna, IT" ; dcterms:license "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode" ; dcterms:publisher "EMMC ASBL" ; dcterms:title "Persistence"@en ; rdfs:comment """Contacts: Gerhard Goldbeck Goldbeck Consulting Ltd (UK) email: gerhard@goldbeck-consulting.com Emanuele Ghedini University of Bologna (IT) email: emanuele.ghedini@unibo.it"""@en , "The EMMO requires HermiT reasoner plugin in order to visualize all inferences and class hierarchy (ctrl+R hotkey in Protege)."@en ; owl:versionInfo "1.0.0-beta7" . ################################################################# # Classes ################################################################# ### https://w3id.org/emmo#EMMO_43e9a05d_98af_41b4_92f6_00f79a09bfce :EMMO_43e9a05d_98af_41b4_92f6_00f79a09bfce rdf:type owl:Class ; :EMMO_967080e5_2f42_4eb2_a3a9_c58143e835f9 "A whole that is identified according to a criteria based on its temporal evolution that is satisfied throughout its time extension."@en ; :EMMO_c7b62dd7_063a_4c2a_8504_42f7264ba83f "A process can be defined only according to an entity type. The minimum process is an entity made of two entities of the same type that are temporally related."@en ; rdfs:comment """Following the common definition of process, the reader may think that every whole should be a process, since every 4D object always has a time dimension. However, in the EMMO we restrict the meaning of the word process to items whose evolution in time have a particular meaning for the ontologist (i.e. every 4D object unfolds in time, but not every 4D time unfolding may be of interest for the ontologist and categorized as a process). For this reason, the definition of every specific process subclass requires the introduction of a primitive concept."""@en ; skos:altLabel "Occurrent"@en , "Perdurant"@en ; skos:prefLabel "Process"@en . ### https://w3id.org/emmo#EMMO_90ae56e4_d197_49b6_be1a_0049e4756606 :EMMO_90ae56e4_d197_49b6_be1a_0049e4756606 rdf:type owl:Class ; :EMMO_967080e5_2f42_4eb2_a3a9_c58143e835f9 "A whole that is identified according to a criteria based on its spatial configuration that is satisfied throughout its time extension."@en ; rdfs:comment """A continuant (here called object) is usually defined as a whole whose all possible temporal parts are always satisfying a specific criterion (wich is the classical definition of continuants). However that's not possible in general, since we will finally end to temporal parts whose temporal extension is so small that the connectivity relations that define the object will no longer hold. That's the case when the temporal interval is lower than the interval that characterize the causality interactions between the object parts. In other terms, if the time span of a temporal part is lower than the inverse of the frequency of interactions between the constituents, then the constituents in such temporal part are not connected. The object is no more an object, neither an item, but simply a collection of fundamental parts. To overcome this issue, we can identify an minimum holistic temporal part (a lower time interval value), below which a specific definition for an object type does not hold anymore, that is called a fundamental."""@en ; skos:altLabel "Continuant"@en , "Endurant"@en ; skos:prefLabel "Object"@en . ### https://w3id.org/emmo#EMMO_e04884d9_eda6_487e_93d5_7722d7eda96b :EMMO_e04884d9_eda6_487e_93d5_7722d7eda96b rdf:type owl:Class ; owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Class ; owl:unionOf ( :EMMO_43e9a05d_98af_41b4_92f6_00f79a09bfce :EMMO_90ae56e4_d197_49b6_be1a_0049e4756606 ) ] ; rdfs:subClassOf :EMMO_49267eba_5548_4163_8f36_518d65b583f9 ; :EMMO_967080e5_2f42_4eb2_a3a9_c58143e835f9 "The union of the object or process classes."@en ; rdfs:comment """The interest is on the 4D object as it extends in time (process) or as it persists in time (object): - object (focus on spatial configuration) - process (focus on temporal evolution) The concepts of endurant and perdurant implicitly rely on the concept of instantaneous 3D snapshot of the world object, that in the EMMO is not allowed since everything extends in 4D and there are no abstract objects. Moreover, time is a measured property in the EMMO and not an objective characteristic of an object, and cannot be used as temporal index to identify endurant position in time. For this reason an individual in the EMMO can always be classified both endurant and perdurant, due to its nature of 4D entity (e.g. an individual may belong both to the class of runners and the class of running process), and the distinction is purely semantic. In fact, the object/process distinction is simply a matter of convenience in a 4D approach since a temporal extension is always the case, and stationarity depends upon observer time scale. For this reason, the same individual (4D object) may play the role of a process or of an object class depending on the object to which it relates. Nevertheless, it is useful to introduce categorizations that characterize persistency through continuant and occurrent concepts, even if not ontologically but only cognitively defined. This is also due to the fact that our language distinguish between nouns and verbs to address things, forcing the separation between things that happens and things that persist. This perspective provides classes conceptually similar to the concepts of endurant and perdurant (a.k.a. continuant and occurrent). We claim that this distinction is motivated by our cognitive bias, and we do not commit to the fact that both these kinds of entity “do really exist”. For this reason, a whole instance can be both process and object, according to different cognitive approaches (see Wonderweb D17). The distinction between endurant and perdurant as usually introduced in literature (see BFO SPAN/SNAP approach) is then no more ontological, but can still be expressed through the introduction of ad hoc primitive definitions that follow the interpreter endurantist or perdurantist attitude."""@en ; skos:prefLabel "Persistence"@en . ### Generated by the OWL API (version 4.5.9.2019-02-01T07:24:44Z) https://github.com/owlcs/owlapi