Thank you for the clarifications :) I agree that Q10 is causal rather than
consequential, and that Q10 / P168 have identical semantics when SP5 G.P.E. is
no longer in the picture. I also strongly agree with the design principle of
not defining class-specific properties, for just the reason you cite.
One minor point…
I agree that not all E53s are Declarative [exclusive] or Phenomenal, otherwise
there would be no need for the subclassing. However, you say …
> If a place is defined by P168, it can only be declarative.
Do you mean that P168 should have a domain of SP6 and no longer E53? Meaning
that SP6 would need to be pulled into core, or P168 moved out to CRMGeo?
Similarly, Q11 crosses the core/geo boundary by relating E53 and SP6. If SP6
moves to core, then so should Q11?
Rob
From: Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Date: Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 8:23 AM
To: Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu>, crm-sig <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Harmonizing Space Primitive
And further SP6s could be introduced for other approximations, such as
centroids, points, exact boundaries, different coordinate systems, etc.
I had interpreted the footnote that SP6 would also be collapsed into Place,
which I understand not to be the case now.
The question is, what to do with Q10, and if SP6 is needed as distinct class,
because using P168 or Q10 implies that the instance of E53 defined by a
geometric expression is, in particular, a declarative place. For methodological
reasons, we avoid in a core ontology to define a class and a property which
imply each other, because it creates a priority conflict when ontological
distinctions begin to differ. Currently, explicitly naming SP6 appears to be
more didactically useful. It appears that Q10 is causal to SP6, and not Q10 a
consequence of SP6.
Given that I was only born at one location, the E53 provides the unique
reference, and SP6 provides the ability to have different approximations of
that location. If only one approximation was needed, then E53 and SP6 could be
collapsed, as SP6 is a subclass of E53. (Though that doesn’t seem like a good
idea…)
This is not correct. Albeit that SP6 is a subclass of E53, deleting the
subclass does not mean that two different places become one. Even if we do not
distinguish at the class level between SP2 and SP6, and if there is only one
approximation, the instances of the phenomenal and the approximating place are
distinct, and will have different types. If a place is defined by P168, it can
only be declarative.
If we would like to describe a phenomenal place for reasons of disambiguation
etc. by a geometric expression directly, we would need a shortcut of SP2 - Q11
- SP6 - P168 - E94, or, abandoning SP2 and SP6 explicitly, of E53
("phenomenal") - Q11 - E53("declarative") - P168 - E94.
Another reason why I tend to avoid SP6 in CRMbase is that E53 Place may not be
either phenomenal or declarative. There are mixed forms, we have not discussed
in CRMgeo yet, such as borderlines partly defined by declaration, and partly by
physical boundaries, and we need containers for them.
-------------------------------------------------------
