Dear Wolfgang,
To my opinion the difference is the following:
a) AP22 is no more in CRMbase. So,if you use only ISO21227, you an only
use the shared time-span.
b) If you use CRMarchaeo, AP22 is available.
c) Using AP22 needs one property instance only, a shared time-span needs
a class instance and two property instances. So, if the time-span is
completely unspecified for either event, AP22 is cheaper to use. If one
time-span is already specified by P4, it is the same.
d) I support we should declare an FOL inference, that both constructs
are equivalent, if there are no other use cases differentiating both.
I would not like to delete AP22 from CRMarchaeo, because it is part of
the complete system of Allen's relations.
In CRMbase, using a shared time-span is indeed more economic than using
the new time-primitives.
How do you see this?
Best,
artn
On 12/15/2024 1:46 PM, Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear Akihiro,
Thank you, that was very interesting! What Martin said, and I have some additional
questions about the difference between sharing a common time-span and the Allen relation
AP22 (formerly P114) "is equal in time to" or its equivalent P175 + P175i +
P184 + P184i.
strict simultaneity usable for inference
If two temporal entities share a common time-span, AP22 also applies. What
would be an inference where it is necessary/useful to model two temporal
entities explicitly as sharing a common time-span instead of just using AP22?
What would be an example of two temporal entities that do not share a common time-span
but are still AP22 "equal in time to"?
Best,
Wolfgang
Am 13.12.2024 um 06:17 schrieb Akihiro Kameda <cm...@outlook.com>:
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
--
------------------------------------
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
