Ai Feedback
Exact(5)
Groups of material entities are scattered material entity aggregates whereas clusters are lumped material entity aggregates.
Our result, however, depends on the premise that all material entities are organized according to a constitutive granularity.
Given that all material entities are constitutively organized, the list of types presented in these schemes is, thus, exhaustive.
Any type of aggregate of material entities, be it a group or a cluster, cannot be an object: groups of material entities are not objects, because their material entity parts are separated from each other by spatial gaps (Fig. 4).
It has been noticed before that fiat boundaries come in two distinct types (those demarcating material entities and those demarcating immaterial entities) and, consequently, fiat entities may also be considered as: (i) "fiat parts" and (ii) "fiat aggregates", the latter of which are aggregates of which the constituting material entities are not connected to each other [23].
Similar(55)
As already mentioned above, whenever a specific spatial distribution of scattered material entities is important, the group category is required.
As a consequence, every group of material entities is demarcated from its complement by some fiat boundaryimmat.
As a consequence, the differentiation of material entity aggregates into clusters and groups of material entities is bona fide and categorial.
Obviously, BFO's top-level categories of material entity are not exhaustive nor mutually disjoint.
By systematically evaluating all possible basic configurations of material building blocks we show that BFO's top-level categories of material entity are not exhaustive.
However, the inventory of building blocks does not equal the inventory of different types of material entity which can exist – like an inventory of different types of Lego bricks, the inventory of building blocks only lists all those types of basic entities, of which all kinds of material entity are built.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com