Some additional comments also from me:
On 3/21/2019 9:51 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
Some additional comments:
First some tentative answers to the three first questions and then a longer
comment on the forth:
1) which E2 is not an E4, even in a broad sense?
Condition states
We are just discussing substantial additional Temporal Entities that are
not E4: The Social Binding for instance.
Even though all phenomena should be regarded to occur in spacetime (if I
understand Kant correctly), this does not mean that they have an
identifiable extent in which they occur. The minimum requirement is to
mark spots within and spots outside. For the "marriage bond", I do not
see a reasonable way to define that. Is the menta
For the Condition State, the question is if it is something occuring on
the object or affects the being of the object. I am still hesitating to
cause such an ambiguity. May be we should reconsider these forms of
"State" as an epistemological construct.
May be it is an E4, but does that anything we need?
2) which E94 (relevant, and not just purely abstract) is not also an E4?
A physical object
All declarative Spacetime Volumes are not E4, not E18, and not abstract.
3) Does the scope note of E94 (E92 I assume?) allow the existence of some
instances that are also E4, as implied by the subclass condition and described
in Dan’s examples?
Bronze Age in Scandinavia
4) What is the difference between P4/P7 and P160/P162? In the second pair
I assume P162 is a typo and the correct pair is P160/P161.
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)
P7 took place at (witnessed)
Domain: E4 Period
Range: E53 Place
Quantification: many to many, necessary (1,n:0,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)
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)
If we assume there are instances of E2 which have only a time component and no
spatial component then the cardinality of P4 must be (1,1:0,1) and P160 must be
(1,1:0,1) since this implies the existence of instances of E52 Time-Span which
are not simultaneously a timespan for an instance of E2 and E92. As discussed
earlier P4 and P160 should be considered equal from E4 and downwards. But as
long as E2 is a proper superclass of E4 we need P4. The question is if there
exists an instance of E2 which is not an instance of E4.
P7 has the cardinality (1,n:0,n) and P161 (1,n:1,1). The intention of P7 is to
link a temporal entity (read E4 Period) to one or more places, cf the last part
of the scopenote for P7 “Something happening at a given place can also be
considered to happen at a larger place containing the first. For example, the
assault on the Bastille July 14th 1789 took place in the area covered by Paris
in 1789 but also in the area covered by France in 1789. “
P161 is the projection to the smallest and unique place a STV occupies during
its lifetime. There is only one such place. (It is unclear to me why this
instance cannot be shared by to spacetime volumes existing in a row.)
I suggest to reconsider the cardinality of P161 and P160, because
declarative places and timespans can form declarative STVs.
I think from P4 downwards there should only be one time-span.
This necessity for a STV to have a unique spatial projection implies that for
E4 and down, there will always be an instance of P53 that is the range of an
instance of P7 and at the same time the range of an instance of P161, which is
fine and which is the reason P7 is a shortcut (cf. the comment by Francesco:
“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”)
Since E4 is a subclass of E92, there may in principle be many instances of P53
Place that are not the range of P7 (but only the range of E161). The question
is analogues to the question above : Can we identify at least some instances of
E92 that are not an instance of E4?
See above, the declarative ones.
best,
Martin
________________________________________
From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Athanasios Velios
<[email protected]>
Sent: 21 March 2019 17:12
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Space time volumes
A couple of comments from me:
1) which E2 is not an E4, even in a broad sense?
I think the question here are whether "E3 Condition State" is the same
as "E4 Period" and if "P5 and P9 consists of" are similar transitive
properties. From a conservation point of view I was never comfortable
with "E3" and I would be happy to model condition as "E4 Period"
replacing "P44 has condition" with "P8 took place on or within". And
maybe having E3 as a subclass of E4.
2) which E94 (relevant, and not just purely abstract) is not also an E4?
E92 STV also includes "E18 Physical Thing" but only for convenience as
the scope note of E18 mentions:
"This model combines two quite different kinds of substance: an instance
of E18 Physical Thing is matter while a spacetime volume is an
aggregation of points in spacetime. However, the real spatiotemporal
extent of an instance of E18 Physical Thing is regarded to be unique to
it, due to all its details and fuzziness; its identity and existence
depends uniquely on the identity of the instance of E18 Physical Thing.
Therefore this multiple inheritance is unambiguous and effective and
furthermore corresponds to the intuitions of natural language."
"E18 Physical Thing" is not "E92 STV" so the IsA hierarchy is wrong at
this point. So moving "E18 Physical Thing" higher and merging E2, E3,
E92 and E4 could be one way of looking at it (and waiting for Martin and
Steve to wake me up).
All the best,
Thanasis
3) Does the scope note of E94 allow the existence of some instances
that are also E4, as implied by the subclass condition and described
in Dan’s examples?
4) What is the difference between P4/P7 and P160/P162?
My answers are in the negative for all of the above, but I may be wrong.
I am not sure that E94 should end in the waste basket; perhaps it
should go in the recycle bin and be repurposed as an abstract concept
like Time-span, Place and Dimension, at the same time freeing E4 from
dependence from it: E4 would occupy some E94, not be it.
Best,
Franco
Il giorno gio 21 mar 2019 alle 08:30 Francesco Beretta
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> ha scritto:
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] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
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
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may
contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based upon them and
you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and
immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where this email is
unrelated to the business of University of the Arts London or of any of its
group companies the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and
do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the
relevant group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the email
is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also applies: UAL
Short Courses Limited is a company registered in England and Wales under
company number 02361261. Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272
High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[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
--
------------------------------------
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
