Dear Akihiro,
Thank you for these rich considerations!
On 12/13/2024 7:17 AM, Akihiro Kameda via Crm-sig wrote:
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.
Yes, indeed!
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/.
This is correct. We may however further distinguish the intended
simultaneity from the observed approximate simultaneity. The solution
you give appears to me absolutely adequate to describe the intention.
For modelling the observation itself, CRMbase does not offer a direct
model for observing events. Only with CRMsci, which is being extended
these days by a more elaborate observation model, the perception itself
could be documented as an "Observable Situation" within which both
launches occur.
Staying within CRMbase, we may use /P82 at some time within /to
associate the same time-primitive value. However, if later more precise
determination, e.g., by video evaluation, would be available, this
seemingly accidental simultaneity would become obsolete.
A more explicit way would be, to use two instances of E13 Attribute
Assignment, stating that each of the phenomenal time-spans of the actual
launches "/P86 falls within/" the same declarative time-span, i.e. one
defined by /P170 defines time. /A respective note can mark the Attribute
Assignment as a result of an observation. This would be compatible with
the current CRMsci/, /using two instances of S4 Observation./
/
________________________________
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.
Excellent! If you have a published example with reference,we would be
glad to insert it into the CRM text.
________________________________
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.
Excellent!
I'd argue that this is normally a physical simultaneity as well. If the
exhibition does not start or end chaotically, the physical opening and
closing of the exhibition space will imply the exhibition periods of
both paintings, regardless whether the official declaration of the
exhibition period deviates more or less from the physical one, isn't it?
If you have a published example with reference,we would be glad to
insert it into the CRM text.
This falls into a general pattern of events being part of other evens
for the complete duration of the superevent.
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.
Very interesting! Would be good to discuss in more detail! There is a
difficult question to which degree electronic connections/communications
make things happening at different locations to be part of the same
event. This has been our current standpoint at CRM SIG.
________________________________
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.
Yes, indeed! We would be glad to include more examples from your side of
the world! Note, that examples need to be real cases that have happened
and are published, not characterizations of their kinds only.
Comments?
All the best,
Martin
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
--
------------------------------------
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
Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
