Dear Wolfgang, Thank you for raising this interesting question.
While working on translating the section on temporal relations, I came across the following description, which raised a similar question for me. I would like to share my understanding here, and I invite everyone to point out any misunderstandings if they notice them. > For documenting exact time spans that are the result of a declaration rather than observation, for instance, in order to describe a time span multiple events may fall into, the property P170 defines time allows for specifying the time span uniquely by a temporal primitive, rather than by P81 ongoing throughout or P82 at some time within using an identical time primitive. ________________________________ 1. *Fireworks Aimed for Simultaneous Launches and Bursts (Observed Simultaneity)* This is an example that *does not fall under the pattern of sharing a time-span instance*, as it represents observed simultaneity rather than simultaneity resulting from identical declarations or events. Consider the case of two fireworks launched where the launches were coordinated through mutual visual signals by firework artisans. While this coordination aimed for simultaneous launches and bursts, due to practical constraints, the events were not strictly simultaneous. To express perceived simultaneity, such as when observers state that "the fireworks occurred at the same time," it is more appropriate to model this as described simultaneity rather than strict simultaneity usable for inference. This can be achieved by representing the statement as an E89 Propositional Object, referring to the two time-spans via *P67 refers to* or *P129 is about*, with supplementary information provided using *P3 has note*. ________________________________ 2. *Laws with Identical Effective Dates (Declared Simultaneity)* Two laws that took effect on "2020/1/1" and ceased on "2022/12/31" due to the enactment and repeal of a superseding law illustrate declared simultaneity. For example, Law A and Law B were declared to be in effect within the same time-span due to identical legislative declarations. This is an example of sharing an E52 Time-Span that is entirely based on explicit declarations, not observations. ________________________________ 3. *Exhibition Periods for Paintings A and B (Principally Simultaneous)* Consider an art exhibition where Painting A and Painting B were displayed. The time-span during which Painting A was exhibited perfectly matches the time-span during which Painting B was exhibited. Furthermore, both time-spans are identical to the overall exhibition period, as defined by the organizers. This scenario can be modeled by assigning a shared E52 Time-Span to the exhibition period and referencing it from the respective temporal entities (e.g., the display events for Paintings A and B) using *P4 has time-span*. The simultaneity of these events is defined by the organizational declaration of the exhibition period, rather than being based on independent observations. Other examples of principally simultaneous time-spans include remote meetings. For instance, a remote meeting held between Company A and Company B could involve events documented separately by each company. Despite being recorded independently, the events share a common E52 Time-Span as they occurred during the same interval but from different locations, with physical and causal simultaneity. ________________________________ Additionally, in our work with CIDOC CRM's *P170 defines time*, we’ve provided the following examples to highlight cases where exact time-spans are defined via declarations rather than observations: Exhibition Period: "2023/1/1 – 2023/3/31" (E61) defines time "The exhibition period of Museum Exhibit A" (E52). Effective Period of a Law: "2020/1/1 – 2022/12/31" (E61) defines time "The effective period of enacted Law B" (E52). Cultural Period: "2025/1/1 – 2025/1/3" (E61) defines time "The first three days of the New Year in Japan (2025)" (E52). These examples align with the principle that a declared time-span (E52) can serve as the shared temporal context for multiple events or activities. I hope these examples are helpful. Best regards, Akihiro Kameda On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 at 16:36, Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Dear All, > > The scope note of P4 "has time-span" says: > > > More than one instance of E2 Temporal Entity may share a common instance > of E52 Time-Span only if they come into being and end being due to > identical declarations or events. > > Does anyone have an actual example of this in their data? > > Best, > Wolfgang > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
