ver, these 
do not seem to get mentioned in the KIF, only indirectly on their impact on 
the notion of hole. I would have thought that basic ontological 
distinctions such as these should be stated up front. Maybe they are som  
ewhere else in? But would it then not be sensible to refer to them?

This is closely related to another point. This is not the only way of 
thinking about holes - as shown by comments on the book (some, if I recall 
correctly, by David Lewis). If you have a different high level onto