Dear All, The scope note of P26 "moved to" says:
> The area of the move includes the origin(s), route and destination(s). I have no issue with that. However, I think the formalisation is not correct: > Therefore, the described destination is an instance of E53 Place which P89 > falls within (contains) the instance of E53 Place the move P7 took place at. P26(x,y) ⇒ (∃z) [E53(z) ∧ P7(x,z) ∧ P89(y,z)] I assume that P26 behaves in the same way as P7, ie. there are some attestations and one can infer the best approximation. Now take this scenario: * a single, very precise attestation of the whole move * one additional larger attestation of the destination In this scenario there is no attested place of the move that contains the attested place of the destination. Note that I don't claim this scenario to be particularly plausible or realistic, but it doesn't have to be. It is just a counterexample to show that the formalisation cannot be correct. Instead we need to compare either the phenomenal places, in which case it is no longer a statement about P26, or our current best knowledge about move and destination. We could say that an attestation of the move is also an attestation of the destination: P26(x,y) ⇐ E9(x) ∧ P7(x,y) In the scenario above we can now infer that the intersection of the two attestations is a new approximation of the destination. And of course the same for P27 "moved from". Side note: This would make P7 a "quasi subproperty" of P26/P27, i.e. a subproperty on a subclass of its domain, although the direction from P7 to P26/P27 is perhaps less intuitive than the direction in e.g. P161 "has spatial projection" being a "quasi subproperty" of P7. Side side note: However, if the S2 and S2a in the other thread are supposed to be different, one consequence would be that P161(x,y) ∧ E4(x) ⇒ P7(x,y) can no longer be true. Another way to come to the same conclusion: it would imply that the phenomenal place is automatically the best known P7 approximation of itself. Perhaps one could call P161 a "phenomenal property" and P7, P26 and P27 "declarative properties". Best, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
