Dear Robert,

On 8/6/2018 7:34 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

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?

No, I mean that P168 can stay with domain E53 in CRMbase, and CRMgeo can declare SP6(x) == E53(x) AND exists y: P168(x,y) or so. CRMgeo will still need SP6 because it matches with OPEN GIS "geometry". One purpose of CRM geo is to link CRM with OPENGIS.

Similarly, Q11 crosses the core/geo boundary by relating E53 and SP6. If SP6 moves to core, then so should Q11?

I mean Q11 should have E53 domain and range even in CRMgeo, because any kind of place can approximate any kind of place.

martin

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.

-------------------------------------------------------


--
--------------------------------------------------------------
 Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
 Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                               |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
                                                             |
               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               |
                                                             |
             Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |
--------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to