Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding domain-range constraints for located_in, see #255 #256

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 25, 2018

Conversation

cmungall
Copy link
Contributor

note this changes introduces a spurious diff bringing in
AP declarations, this can be ignored

note this changes introduces a spurious diff bringing in
AP declarations, this can be ignored
@cmungall cmungall merged commit 0619f28 into master Sep 25, 2018
@cmungall cmungall deleted the located-in-domain-range branch September 25, 2018 23:08
@alanruttenberg
Copy link

Hi Chris,

Barry asked that I have a quick look at this.

In the new axiomatization, located_in is (independent continuant other than spatial region) -> (independent continuant other than spatial region).

For relating to spatial regions, the relation is occupies-spatial-region and is (independent-continuant other than spatial region) -> spatial region.

There is no location relation from spatial region to spatial region. In that case part-of is the appropriate relation.

cmungall added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 28, 2018
We keep the weaker D+R constraints in for EL purposes
@cmungall
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks - I'm taking care of these on this PR: #261

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants