1. There is probable a mistake in:
Should it be Part 3?Notation
- If a word appears in underlined, bold camel case in green it refers to ISO15926 Part 4.
2. Why Part 3 entities are refereed to as Classes? In line with Part 7 they should be called "entity types" or unary first-order predicates in FOL template description language.
In current template definitions statements like
are quite clear but formally meaningless.ClassOfAbstractObject(Class BoundedFiniteSurface) ^
UnboundedFiniteCurve ( x1 ) ^
3. Related to that, can you clarify the problem identified as:
"There is ongoing discussion about :-
o How to define a single template to achieve identification and classification of abstract objects"
and
"These issues are realized by the omission of the role hasPossessor/hasObject ".
What is wrong with adding hasPossessor x0 role to each template and start the axiom with proper typing predicate?
Like instead of:
put:BoundedFiniteSurface ( x1, x2 ) <->
ClassOfAbstractObject(Class BoundedFiniteSurface) ^
UnboundedFiniteCurve ( x1 ) ^
FiniteSetOfDirectedLoop ( x2 )
BoundedFiniteSurface ( x0, x1, x2 ) <->
BoundedFiniteSurface(x0) ^
UnboundedFiniteCurve ( x1 ) ^
FiniteSetOfDirectedLoop ( x2 )