Dear Martin, > The FOL formalisation is NOT about publicly available place attestations. > This has not be said anywhere. Generally, the FOL statements are not > constraint by known knowledge. If you question this, or require in the FOL to > distinguish known knowledge from ontologically necessary one, we need another > issueπ. > > The spatial projection of the move is a P7. It exists regardless knowledge.
See my reply in "P7(x,y) and knowing". > The origin location and the destination has a spatial projection as well. It > exists regardless knowledge, and must fall within the move path. > > It is simply a necessary condition for P26, part of its definition. Apart from "the spatial projection of the move is a P7" I don't deny that. As I said, I have no issue with "The area of the move includes the origin(s), route and destination(s)" and its application to either the spatial projections or our current best knowledge. The P26 scope note can indeed be read as implicitly claiming that the property is about the phenomenal place: "A move may be linked to many terminal instances of E53 Place by multiple instances of this property. In this case the move describes a distribution of a set of objects." This seems to imply that different P26 statements are not different attestations but describe the phenomenal places of different objects. However, one can already ask why this formulation is necessary when the 6852 islands of Japan count as one place. The scope note goes on: "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." If I am supposed to read this as a statement about the spatial projections, it should be P161 "has spatial projection" instead of P7: P26(x,y) β (βz) [E53(z) β§ P161(x,z) β§ P89(y,z)] or equivalently P26(x,y) β§ E53(z) β§ P161(x,z) β P89(y,z) And for a phenomenal place I would expect P161-style examples that state the fact but usually don't tell us where it is. From P161: The Roman Empire (E4) has spatial projection: all areas ever claimed by Rome (E53) From issue 608: E92 [trajectory of a voussoir] - P161 has spatial projection - E53 Place [location of fallen voussoir] Instead, there is this example for E9 Move: the relocation of London Bridge from the UK to the USA (Wildfang, 2005) This looks like it implies a place attestation "UK" of the origin and "USA" of the destination. And this example for P26: The movement of the exhibition "Tutankhamun: Treasures of the Golden Pharaoh" between 15th of September and 2nd of November 2019 (E9) moved to the Saatchi Gallery London (E53) This looks like a place attestation as well. As a matter of fact, there was a parallel exhibition "Artists-in-residence to respond to Tutankhamun" in the Saatchi Gallery at the same time, so the Tutankhamun exhibition did not move to the whole gallery. > Therefore, if the destination place is to be approximated, it should be > within an approximation of the move path. > > As such, it does not behave like P7. I have no issue with the first sentence. In fact, this is exactly what I suggested: P26(x,y) β E9(x) β§ P7(x,y) A version of this for P26 as a phenomenal place is equivalent to the axiom P26(x,y) β (βz) [E53(z) β§ P161(x,z) β§ P89(y,z)] above. Best, Wolfgang > Am 02.11.2022 um 19:26 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig > <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>: > > Dear Wolfgang, > > I do not agree with your conclusions. > > The FOL formalisation is NOT about publicly available place attestations. > This has not be said anywhere. Generally, the FOL statements are not > constraint by known knowledge. If you question this, or require in the FOL to > distinguish known knowledge from ontologically necessary one, we need another > issueπ. > > The spatial projection of the move is a P7. It exists regardless knowledge. > The origin location and the destination has a spatial projection as well. It > exists regardless knowledge, and must fall within the move path. > > It is simply a necessary condition for P26, part of its definition. > > Therefore, if the destination place is to be approximated, it should be > within an approximation of the move path. > > As such, it does not behave like P7. > > Opinions? > > Best, > > Martin > > On 10/28/2022 10:55 AM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote: >> An even easier example to see that the FOL formalisation is wrong is a >> stolen painting with unknown whereabouts. In this case there is a place >> attestation of the origin but no (publicly available) place attestation of >> the move at all, unless we argue with an implicit "move took place at Planet >> Earth". >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stolen_paintings#Unrecovered >> >> >>> Am 26.10.2022 um 13:00 schrieb Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig >>> <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>: >>> >>> 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) β (βz) [E53(z) β§ P7(x,z) β§ 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) β E9(x) β§ 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) β§ E4(x) β 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 >>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> 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: mar...@ics.forth.gr > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
