Dear Robert,
On 3/13/2019 2:51 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Let me put it a different way…
Currently the model allows us to partition physical things according
to a time-span. I can easily document how to have a new identity for
the Nightwatch in its 17 ft phase, and a separate identity for it in
its 14.3 ft phase. I then don’t need to document how to express the
width, as it’s exactly the same pattern as the “real” object. I can do
the same with any descendent of physical thing, or any descendant of E4.
This seems, I have to say, like a very easy way to model Phase and
State with no additional ontological features needed. I can, today,
say that there is a Person which I “contain”, and has a particular
temporal projection (begin of the being April 25 2016, no end date),
and p2_has_type SemanticArchitect. We could provide a label mapping of
P10i_contains to something like “has_phase” and it would follow the
ontology and be easily usable and understandable.
I think this is simply an inconsistent model, because the "person I
contain" must have an identity condition. It has necessarily a birth.
Just check E21. We have to add conditions that the STV is temporally
bounded by these events, which is obvious.
This has to be spelled out. The cardinality of P100 was death of seems
to be wrong. It allows multiple deaths for people. Here is an
interesting question how to deal with STVs that extend into future!
Best,
Martin
I don’t regard it as a bad application, because the ontology
explicitly allows it by having E18 as a subclass of E92. Compared to
introducing two new classes and a bunch of new properties, instead I
can simply use functionality present in CRM base today … and I can
probably live with feeling dirty because of it, knowing it’s
exploiting a feature that probably shouldn’t be there.
And thus, I think the feature probably shouldn’t be there :)
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin
Doerr <[email protected]>
*Date: *Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 4:55 PM
*To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between
E2, E4, E52 and E92
Dear Robert,
I agree that this is a "non-intended" model, as Guarino describes it.
He also points out, that no ontology can exclude all unintended models.
However, I do not see actually why this kind of model would be
disallowed with a link. If I am not mistaken, anything that can be
said with the IsA can be said with the 1-1 link. Just add the links,
isn't it?
Indeed, parts can have a smaller time of existence than the whole.
This is intended. To declare a whole which has no portion surviving
from beginning to end of the whole is also realistic. To declare a
whole as E22 which has no properties poses a question about its identity.
So, I regard the example as a bad application, not a shortcoming of
the schema, and a question of elaborating the identity conditions for
physical objects.
Opinions?
Martin
On 3/12/2019 4:27 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Dear Martin, all,
I agree with your assessment into the four categories, and that
the first three are met, and the last is more complicated.
I also agree with the formalism for E4. It moves some of the
complexity around, and doesn’t introduce inconsistency for the
temporal side of things for subclasses of E2.
However, I agree with George that this does not hold true for the
other sub class of E92, being E18 Physical Thing. With this
subclass assertion, we can partition physical things based on time
and then make assertions about those partitions using all of the
sub-classes of E18. For example, to say that the Nightwatch had a
width of 17 feet between its production in 1642 and 1715 when it
was trimmed to fit on a wall in the Amsterdam town hall, we could
have an E22 for the painting throughout time, and use P10 to
reference further E22s, each of which were clarified with P160 as
to their temporal projection. These projections could then have
different dimensions.
<Nightwatch> a E22_Man-Made_Object ;
P10i_contains <Large_Nightwatch> , <Small_Nightwatch> .
<Large_Nightwatch> a E22_Man-Made_Object ;
P160_has_temporal_projection [
a E52_Time-Span ;
P81a_begin_of_the_begin “1642-01-01”
P82a_end_of_the_end “1715-12-31” ] ;
P43_has_dimension [
P2_as_type <width-type> ;
P90_has_value 17 ;
P91_has_unit <feet-unit> ]
(and the same for Small_Nightwatch, starting 1715 with 14.3 feet
as width)
This seems antithetical to the intent of the model (as I
understand it) where activities (such as Modification in this
case) are kept separate from the entities that they affect.
This particular pattern could be prevented by having E92 not be a
sub class of E18, without affecting the P160 / P4 discussion.
However, I note some issues with making only this split:
·It would still be valuable to have the STV of a physical thing,
in order to calculate the intersection between the STV that a
physical object projects with Periods (that are themselves STVs).
So it would be valuable to introduce a relationship between E18
and E92, introducing pattern inconsistency.
·While Period and Event seem to share the identity conditions with
STV, Activity and below start to seem less identical. I worry that
I become the space-time volume of the sum of my activities… and
then I am a STV again, even though we removed it from E18 for just
this reason.
·The same issue for P160 / P4 would apply for P161 / P53 – the
spatial projection of the object is its former or current
location, as they have the same identity currently.
So overall, I think my position is that for consistency of the
model, E92 should not be a subclass of either E4 or E18, but
instead related via a property.
Hope that helps!
Rob
--
------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
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]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
