Dear All,
Property P4 currently reads:
P4 has time-span (is time-span of)
Domain: E2 <#_E2_Temporal_Entity> Temporal Entity
Range: E52 <#_E52_Time-Span> Time-Span
Quantification: many to one, necessary, dependent (1,1:1,n)
Scope note: This property describes the temporal confinement of
an instance of an E2 Temporal Entity.
The related E52 Time-Span is understood as the real Time-Span during
which the phenomena were active, which make up the temporal entity
instance. It does not convey any other meaning than a positioning on the
“time-line” of chronology. The Time-Span in turn is approximated by a
set of dates (E61 Time Primitive). A temporal entity can have in reality
only one Time-Span, but there may exist alternative opinions about it,
which we would express by assigning multiple Time-Spans. Related
temporal entities may share a Time-Span. Time-Spans may have completely
unknown dates but other descriptions by which we can infer knowledge.
Examples:
§ the Yalta Conference (E7) has time-span Yalta Conference time-span (E52)
I believe in the discussion in October about Temporal Entities sharing
time-spans we have confused the
equality of the begin of a timespan of an event causally starting/
finishing a Temporal Entity (coronation & death of a king) with the
total time-span of the respective temporal entity.
I therefore maintain that E52 is the phenomenal time-span, and equally
unique as the respective phenomenal Space-Time Volume in case of an E4
Period, except for differences of relativistic temporal reference spaces.
Even if "Related temporal entities may share a Time-Span", I'd argue
that it is methodologically wrong from
a perspective of documentation to express such a fact indirectly through
the time, rather than via the causality in terms of the shared events.
I'd argue that any such equality must exclusively be based on shared
phenomena which can/should directly be expressed in the CRM.
The fact that there may be alternative opinions is inconsistent with the
method of assigning quantification in the CRM. They all describe reality
regardless alternative opinions.
Therefore I propose:
P4 has time-span (is time-span of)
Domain: E2 <#_E2_Temporal_Entity> Temporal Entity
Range: E52 <#_E52_Time-Span> Time-Span
Quantification: one to one (1,1:1,1)
Scope note: This property describes the temporal confinement of
an instance of an E2 Temporal Entity.
The related E52 Time-Span is understood as the real Time-Span during
which the phenomena were active, which make up the temporal entity
instance. It does not convey any other meaning than a positioning on the
“time-line” of chronology. The Time-Span in turn is approximated by a
set of dates (E61 Time Primitive). A temporal entity can have only one
Time-Span., Time-Spans may have completely unknown dates but other
descriptions by which we can infer knowledge.
Examples:
§ the Yalta Conference (E7) has time-span Yalta Conference time-span (E52)
Best,
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
