Scope note

Text

rdfs:comment "\"MASOLO C et al. (2003), The WonderWeb library of foundational ontologies and the DOLCE ontology. WonderWeb (EU IST project 2001-33052) deliverable D18, rapp. tech., LOAISTC-CNR. p. 11
“Classically,endurants(also called continuants) are characterized as entities that are ‘intime’, they are ‘wholly’ present (all their proper parts arepresent) at any time of their ex-istence. On the other hand,perdurants(also called occurrents) are entities that ‘happen in time’, they extend in time by accumulating different ‘temporal parts’, so that, at any timetat which they exist, only their temporal parts attare present.12For example, the bookyou are holding now can be considered an endurant because (now) it is wholly present,while “your reading of this book” is a perdurant because, your “reading” of the previoussection is not present now. Note that it is possible to distinguish between ‘ordinary ob-jects’ (like the book) and ‘events or process’ (like ‘the reading of the book’) even whenthe domain contains perdurants only. In this latter case, one relies on properties that lieoutside spatio-temporal aspects. Indeed, one can assume that four-dimensional entities donot need to have different spatio-temporal locations. A person and its life (both taken tobe 4D entities) share the same space-time region but differ on other properties since, forinstance, color, race, beliefs and the like make sense for person only.Endurants and perdurants can be characterized in a different way. Something is anendurant if (i) it exists at more than one moment and (ii) its parts can be determinedonly relatively to something else (for instance time)[49].In other words, the distinctionis based on the different nature of the parthood relation: endurants need a time-indexedparthood, while perdurants do not. Indeed, a statement like“this keyboard is part of mycomputer” is incomplete unless you specify a particular time, while “my youth is part of my life” does not require such a specification.13"

Language

en