Hi all, I’m sure there’s a good reason why this is not a good idea, and if I had been at the meetings since the early days I surely would know why it’s not a good idea … but …
Could E92 not be a sub class of E2, if we were to separate out E3 Condition State in the work to model States / Phases more thoroughly? Then P160 could just be deprecated in favor of P4? P10, P132 and P133 are all still valuable, as they include the intersection of space as well as of time. My first thought was that the properties of E2 other than P4 are not applicable to E18 (and descendants) … but if P160 is, and P132/P133 are, then there must be some temporality that can have a start and end, as given in the temporal projection. The temporal projection of Rob starts after the start of the temporal projection of Rob’s mother seems like a reasonable thing to assert, if we can have timespans/temporal projections. Rob From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 9:43 AM To: crm-sig <[email protected]> Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between E2, E4, E52 and E92 Dear All, We consider the following properties: P4 has time-span (is time-span of) Domain: E2 Temporal Entity Range: E52 Time-Span Quantification: many to one, necessary, dependent (1,1:1,n) P160 has temporal projection (is temporal projection of) Domain: E92 Spacetime Volume Range: E52 Time-Span Quantification: one to one (1,1:1,1) In FOL: P4(x,y) ⊃ E2(x), P4(x,y) ⊃ E52(y) P160(x,y) ⊃ E92(x), P160(x,y)⊃ E52(y) The problem comes from this: E4 Period being a spacetime volume and a temporal entity. E4(x) ⊃ E2(x), E4(x) ⊃ E92(x) I now propose to: declare P4, to imply P160 from E4 Period "downwards": (P4(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P160(x,y), (P160(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P4(x,y). We may then recommend to use only P4 from E4 Period downwards. I do not know, if we would also need (P160(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P4(x,y) in order to make them identical from E4 downwards. ================================================ Further: P7 took place at (witnessed) Domain: E4 Period Range: E53 Place Quantification: many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n) "The related E53 Place should be seen as a wider approximation of the geometric area within which the phenomena that characterize the period in question occurred, see below." P161 has spatial projection (is spatial projection of) Domain: E92 Spacetime Volume Range: E53 Place Superproperty of: E18 Physical Thing. P156 occupies (is occupied by): E53 Place Quantification: one to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:1,1) Firstly, I believe the quantification of P161 must be Quantification: many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n). A place needs not be the projection of a Spacetime Volume. Then, in FOL: P7(x,y) ⊃ E4(x), P7(x,y) ⊃ E53(y) P161(x,y) ⊃ E92(x), P161(x,y) ⊃ E53(y) I propose to add: The spatial projection of an E4 Period is a "took place at". (P161(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P7(x,y). Opinions? Best, Martin -- ------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Doerr Honorary Head of the 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 Vox:+30(2810)391625 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
