Aha, this belongs to issue 613. I didn’t see it before.
> Am 19.10.2022 um 16:59 schrieb Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig > <[email protected]>: > > And another one: Are there really no "weak inverse" shortcuts? > > Meghini & Doerr 2018 argue that weak inverse shortcuts are possible, although > their example looks a little artificial: > > E18 Physical Thing P53 has former or current location E53 Place > implies > E18 Physical Thing P161 has spatial projection E53 Place P121 overlaps with > E53 Place > > The CIDOC CRM document, on the other hand, says: "An instance of the > fully-articulated path always implies an instance of the shortcut property." > So, there seems to be a change of opinion after 2018. > > But this FOL expression that can be spotted in the wild looks to me like an > example of a weak inverse shortcut: > > E70 Thing P101 had as general use E55 Type > E70 Thing P16i was used for E7 Activity P2 has type E55 Type > P101(x,y) ⇒ (∃z) [E7(z) ∧ P16i(x,z) ∧ P2(z,y)] > > The P101 scope note mentions it only indirectly ("This property associates an > instance of E70 Thing with an instance of E55 Type that describes the type of > use that it was actually employed for"), but I assume it is indeed ⇒ and not > ⇔. > > Best, > Wolfgang > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
