Dear Dan, Franco, all,
in a nutshell:
Period – E4
P4 has time-span E52 Time-Span
P7 took place at E53 Place
Spacetime Volume – E92
P160 has temporal projection E52 Time-Span
P161 has spatial projection E53 Place
Period – E4 (phenomenal) Pxx has projection in Spacetime Volume – E92
(‘region’)
If we keep Spacetime Volume – E92 in the model we should get rid of /P4
has time-span/ and /P7 took place/ at because they are redundant with
/P160 has temporal projection/and /P161 has spatial projection/, or
apply the logical mechanism proposed by Martin which is under discussion.
If we get rid of E92 (and properties) and clearly explain E4 is a
spacetime volume /by definition/, with temporal and spatial projection
(P4/P7), then the issue seems to be solved.
E4 being a subclass of E92 is in my opinion (and other’s also as we
know) inconsistent with the traditional modelling method, and also
misleading.
If E4 can be merged with E2 (E2 would always have a projection in space,
at least virtually, be this my brain the ‘place’ for my belief), then E2
is a STV with projection in time and space.
This synthesis may be too simple not to be simplistic and I miss some
crucial point ?
All the best
Francesco
Le 21.03.19 à 00:05, Franco Niccolucci a écrit :
(Dan, resist, the cavalry is arriving, do you hear the trumpets? )
Sorry, that’s not convincing.
E4 Period is a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume, so every E4 is also
an E92. There may theoretically be some E92 that are not E4, i.e.
abstract subsets of R4 (sorry my email app does not allow
superscrpits, R4 means the 4-dimensional space of real numbers x, y, z, t)
So Dan’s “Byzantine period” is rightfully also a Spacetime Volume,
besides obviously being an E4 Period; same as it is an E1, the mother
of all concepts. If it does not fit with the E92 scope note, it is the
latter that is misspelled and wrong, not Dan. Scope notes cannot
override isA.
Also, since the domain of P160 & 161 is E92, they can be applied also
to E4. Perhaps this makes P7 superfluous, but that’s another story.
In sum there is nothing “wrong” in Dan’s usage of E92 and the related
properties.
I would also add that I find difficult to describe an E92 that is not
an E4, besides artificial examples.
(Dan, nasty Indians are running away in debacle, you are safe...)
Finally, let me express some nightly gut feeling.
I am not comfortable with the scope note of E2: “This class comprises
all phenomena, such as the instances of E4 Periods, E5 Events and
states, which happen over a limited extent in time”. If these
phenomena are happening, they happen somewhere, do you know anything
happening nowhere? so I would feel better by adding at the end of this
sentence “in time AND SPACE”. Actually, all the examples of E2
mentioned in its scope note happen somewhere: the Bronze Age happened
in a region (Europe, the Levant, etc. not in America); the Lisbon
earthquake happend in Lisbon; the Peterhof Palace in ruins happened in
Northern Russia. My gut feeling is that the scope notes of E2 and
perhaps E4 were written before achieving the concept of E92, so they
might be inconsistent or superfluous nowadays. My moonlight feeeling
is that all temporal things are subclasses of E92; but this could be
the effect of sad Brussels loneliness, where I am now, so don’t take
it too seriously.
Best
Franco
Il giorno mer 20 mar 2019 alle 15:04 Dan Matei <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> ha scritto:
Thanks Christian-Emil and Martin.
I will use then E4 and P7 (regretfully :-)
My impression is that the combination E92, P160 & P161 is a more
elegant solution. But, rules are
rules...
Best,
EDan
E2 and -----Original Message-----
From: Martin Doerr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:13:52 +0200
> As Christian-Emil also pointed out, this is a wrong use of E92.
>
> The scope note says: "This class comprises 4 dimensional point sets
> (volumes) in physical spacetime....".
>
> Do you regard that what makes up the identity and substance of the
> Byzantine Period is to be a set of points?
>
> best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 3/19/2019 10:27 AM, Dan Matei wrote:
> > Hi fiends,
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 19:20, Martin Doerr
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >> Nevertheless, we used the term informally in the CRM. We
could name E92 as "abstract".
> > For me, some E92 are not abstract. E.g. I instantiate "Byzantine
> > Period" (it is somwhat difficult to place it in South America
:-) :
> >
> > <#ByzantinePeriod> <isA> <crm:E92_Spacetime_Volume>
> > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P160_has_temporal_projection> <330-1700>
> > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P161_has_spatial_projection>
<#EsternEurope>
> > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P161_has_spatial_projection> <#Levant>
> > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P161_has_spatial_projection>
<#NorthAfrica>
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > <#BronzeAge1> <isA> <crm:E92_Spacetime_Volume>
> > <#BronzeAge1> <crm:P2 has_type> <#BronzeAge-Concept>
> > <#BronzeAge1> <crm:P160_has_temporal_projection> <p?1>
> > <#BronzeAge1><crm:P161_has_spatial_projection> <#JapaneseIslands>
> >
> > <#BronzeAge2> <isA> <crm:E92_Spacetime_Volume>
> > <#BronzeAge2> <crm:P2 has_type> <#BronzeAge-Concept>
> > <#BronzeAge2> <crm:P160_has_temporal_projection> <p?2>
> > <#BronzeAge2><crm:P161_has_spatial_projection> <#Scandinavia>
> >
> > Should I worry ?
> >
> > Dan
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
