Good point! I agree that the necessary condition of P98 means that the
Person-STV is impossible, as that temporal projection was not, itself, born.
Thus all STVs that are also Persons, must at least include the temporal
projection of the birth of the Person.
So … it doesn’t work for Person p10i Person, but it could be reduced to a
higher level class that doesn’t have such an identity condition. For example,
for some time I had a phase in which I was 183 centimeters tall:
Person p10i [
a E18_Physical_Object ;
P43_has_dimension [
a E54_Dimension
P90_has_value 183 ;
P91_has_unit <centimeters> ]
P160_has_temporal_projection [
a E52_Time-Span ;
…
]
Rob
From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr
<[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 4:45 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between E2, E4, E52
and E92
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]><mailto:[email protected]> on behalf
of Martin Doerr <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 4:55 PM
To: "[email protected]"<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]><mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
