Suggested "atemporal" permanent generic relations (ro2005-ish) do not have natural inverses and need continuant/occurrent distinction

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The inverse of permanent generic part of is not permanent generic has part. 
This is easy to see in that, in general the left hand side of this relation is 
a single entity, whereas the right hand side in general is either a type, or at 
least a number of individuals.

That would follow the pattern that the RO class level relations are not 
inverses of each other. 

Only the -at-a-time instance-of relation are (sort of) inverse. 

Also note that permanent generic part hood doesn't make sense for occurrents. 

Therefore the suggestion that the atemporal relations are simpler and don't 
require as many variants as the temporalized relations is false. There would 
need to be, at least, a distinction between occurrents and continuants is 
needed (because generic parthood only makes sense for continuants) and separate 
inverses are needed (since the part-of relation inverse is not has-part).

This would suggest that a strategy that defined "ro2005-ish" atemporal 
relations, would not seem to be a simpler solution than that which is offered 
with the temporal relations.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 7 May 2013 at 5:19