Dear Robert,
That is one idea. The question is actually, if it is only containers
that carry things around. My computer has a hard disk in it, but also
the "bears feature" is nothing else than indirectly referring to the
object as a place.
Another question is, why we do have "P8 took place on or within", which
"...describes the location of an instance of E4 Period with respect to
an E19 Physical Object. P8 took place on or within (witnessed) is a
shortcut of the more fully developed path from ‘E4 Period’ through ‘P7
took place at’, ‘E53 Place’, ‘P156i is occupied by’, to ‘E18 Physical
Thing’"
...and not another "Pxxx is located on or within" . One could either
introduce that or give up both in favor of the IsA. We had however in
CRMSci concerns if all physical things qualify to define a spatial
reference frame, if they are too plastic. On the other side, their
extent is always a spatial confinement, even without being able to mark
relative positions within them, e.g., an Amoeba having swallowed some algae.
Following CRMgeo, instances of Place do only exist as long as their
reference object exists. It cannot be otherwise. Only spacetime points
are absolute in the universe, because they exist only for their instant
of time, and do not cause problems of spatial reference systems moving
in different directions.
Indeed, the question of being "on" is an interesting one. It should be
interpreted as being adjacent to the surface. Imagine a young bock in
the hunter's rucksack, limbs protruding: Is it in, or on, or in and on?
In order to avoid such ambiguities, I would rather stick to a notion of
adjacency, in case of things. If we use IsA, then "bears feature'
becomes superfluous, but we need to check the implications of
topological relations with other places, such as places within such places.
If you just declare containers and gravity-bound storage features to be
IsA place, you avoid the more general questions.
Best,
Martin
On 7/9/2019 7:49 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Thank you Martin.
Having the same instance be both the physical thing and the place that
the physical thing is the reference for is interesting. It certainly
cuts out the mostly unnecessary entities.
Given that Place and Human-Made Object only intersect at E1, there
doesn’t seem to be any significant confusion by having a new class
that’s a sub class of both E22 and E53. It could be called a Container.
There’s some weirdness about partitioning of the physical, and how
that relates to the positional, but so far nothing that produces
inconsistency that wouldn’t also be inconsistent with the fully
expressed path. For example, a desk with drawers is a Container, that
has parts which are Containers. The place-ness of the desk and drawers
are not necessarily also partitioned in the same way, which is fine –
we might consider only the top of the desk as the place that it
defines, which would be distinct from the drawers. Equally, if we
took the drawer out of the desk and put it on top, we would not have
part of the place being contained within itself.
It means that the place is destroyed along with the object … but
that’s not bad either. Without the reference system of the object, the
place no longer has any meaning. It does get a little strange with
former_or_current_location – the former location is a thing that has
been destroyed – but that’s indeed what has happened.
Could we have another RDFS join class - E22_E53_Container ?
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin
Doerr <[email protected]>
*Date: *Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 1:49 PM
*To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] Object containership shortcuts?
On 6/24/2019 10:59 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Dear all,
Has anyone used P54 has current permanent location in practice in
an information system, where the containing Place is defined only
with respect to some other physical object?
Some use cases for this pattern:
·A set of letters in a folder, or a set of paintbrushes in a box
·A set of coins in a display case
·Books on a bookshelf
This seems like a very easy use case for a shortcut between
Physical Objects to avoid creating Places that exist only to be
the P54 of some other object. The containing object is typically
1:1 with its container-space, as even if there are drawers in a
desk, you could model the drawer as a part of the desk, which had
its own space. Thus the cutlery in one drawer, the cooking
utensils in a different drawer, despite being part of the same
kitchen cupboard unit.
The most simple solution is Physical Object IsA Place, with the
respective semantics, of being itself the reference system.
The temporal aspects of P53, P55 are given by the Presence class,
which requires E18 IsA STV, otherwise the paths get very long...
We will try in our team a logical definition of these things.
Thoughts?
Best,
Martin
Similarly, P53 and P55 could also benefit from such a shortcut for
their different temporal aspects.
Thoughts?
Rob
_______________________________________________
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
--
------------------------------------
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
