Examples: DOLCE and BFO in DL and Manchester syntax

The OWL versions of DOLCE (DOLCE-lite.owl from the DLP3971.zip file) and BFO (bfo-1.1.owl downloaded on 13-11-’09), respectively, have been loaded into Protégé 4.0 build 113, and by using “Save as... latex” exported to a DL rendering, whereas the Manchester syntax has been copied from its “Manchester syntax rendering” view in Protégé. I did not verify if the transformations are correct; so it comes as is. The Manchester syntax rendering is rather lengthy, both due to its layout and that it includes the annotations/comments that provide explanation of the intended meaning of the categories. To make the connection between these two renderings and the Protégé interface a little clearer, take, for instance, DOLCE’s physical-quality, depicted in Fig. 1 on the next page, or BFO’s quality (Fig. 2) and check the corresponding representations and annotations in the remainder of this file. Observe also the difference in OWL features that are used (or not) by DOLCE and BFO: the core BFO in OWL does not use object properties (but check also the isabelle version of BFO and there is a bfo-ro.owl). Neither one has data properties or individuals. The annotations have limited information about synonyms, e.g. that BFO’s Continuant is synonymous with (DOLCE’s) Endurant. Can you find more (exact or near-) matches?