Dear Robert,
In the first place, E2 has a substance of "phenomena" something
"becoming" "changing" "moving", "interacting". In addition, we interpret
it now also more statically as including a sort of maintaining
something. It is necessarily connected to some "things" on which such
interactions, changes or temporary, non-essential formation of
properties happen, but we have seen so far no good general way to
describe the ways of involvement at the level of E2.
E92 is nothing of that kind. It is just spacetime, the generalized space
in which we live and think, not what is there not what happens there. It
is just a "where". It is further a volume in that space, i.e., it must
have some inner part, and a surface as fuzzy as it may be, and a way to
identify it.
We connect E4 and E18 with E92 as second superclass in order to describe
a necessary one-to-one combination, in order to save the trivial links
between them. We could do that with E2 too, but the space in which
things like "being married" occur can hardly be seen as volumes with a
surface. In contrast, I can be in the meeting (E4) or outside, in the
battle or outside, even though the fuzziness between being inside and
outside is very high.
Therefore, I would exclude both, E2 being subclass of E92 or superclass.
The discussion to which degree we should regard any E18 as ongoing
interactions in spacetime is old and endless. We have so far rather
preferred to think of a fundamental difference between "becoming" and
"being" as a psychological and linguistic phenomenon, because this is
the most adequate to the way people document things. The problem now is
that by introducing E92 we are again confronted with the borderlines
between the change itself and the changing thing, the thing that
persists over time, but yet is limited in time, the things that are
somewhere, but constitute a "where" for others.
Would that make sense:-)?
Best,
Martin
On 3/7/2019 11:35 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Hi all,
I’m sure there’s a good reason why this is not a good idea, and if I
had been at the meetings since the early days I surely would know why
it’s not a good idea … but …
Could E92 not be a sub class of E2, if we were to separate out E3
Condition State in the work to model States / Phases more thoroughly?
Then P160 could just be deprecated in favor of P4? P10, P132 and P133
are all still valuable, as they include the intersection of space as
well as of time.
My first thought was that the properties of E2 other than P4 are not
applicable to E18 (and descendants) … but if P160 is, and P132/P133
are, then there must be some temporality that can have a start and
end, as given in the temporal projection. The temporal projection of
Rob starts after the start of the temporal projection of Rob’s mother
seems like a reasonable thing to assert, if we can have
timespans/temporal projections.
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin
Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr>
*Date: *Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 9:43 AM
*To: *crm-sig <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
*Subject: *[Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between E2,
E4, E52 and E92
Dear All,
We consider the following properties:
P4 has time-span (is time-span of)
Domain: E2 <#_E2_Temporal_Entity> Temporal Entity
Range: E52 <#_E52_Time-Span> Time-Span
Quantification: many to one, necessary, dependent (1,1:1,n)
P160 has temporal projection (is temporal projection of)
Domain: E92 <#_E92_Spacetime_Volume> Spacetime Volume
Range: E52 <#_E52_Time-Span> Time-Span
Quantification: one to one (1,1:1,1)
In FOL:
P4(x,y) ⊃ E2(x), P4(x,y) ⊃ E52(y)
P160(x,y) ⊃ E92(x), P160(x,y)⊃ E52(y)
*The problem comes from this: *E4 Period being a spacetime volume and
a temporal entity.
E4(x) ⊃ E2(x), E4(x) ⊃ E92(x)
*I now propose to:* declare P4, to imply P160 from E4 Period "downwards":
(P4(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P160(x,y), (P160(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P4(x,y).
We may then recommend to use only P4 from E4 Period downwards.
I do not know, if we would also need (P160(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P4(x,y) in
order to make them identical from E4 downwards.
================================================
Further:
P7 took place at (witnessed)
Domain: E4 <#_E4_Period> Period
Range: E53 <#_E53_Place> Place
Quantification: many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n)
"The related E53 Place should be seen as a wider approximation of the
geometric area within which the phenomena that characterize the period
in question occurred, see below."
P161 has spatial projection (is spatial projection of)
Domain: E92 <#_E92_Spacetime_Volume> Spacetime Volume
Range: E53 <#_E53_Place> Place
Superproperty of: E18 <#_E18_Physical_Thing> Physical Thing. P156
<#_P153_assigned_co-reference> occupies (is occupied by): E53
<#_E53_Place> Place
Quantification: one to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:1,1)
Firstly, I believe the quantification of P161 must be
Quantification: many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n). A place needs
not be the projection of a Spacetime Volume.
Then, in FOL:
P7(x,y) ⊃ E4(x), P7(x,y) ⊃ E53(y)
P161(x,y) ⊃ E92(x), P161(x,y) ⊃ E53(y)
*I propose to add: *The spatial projection of an E4 Period is a "took
place at".
(P161(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P7(x,y).
Opinions?
Best,
Martin
--
------------------------------------
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
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
--
------------------------------------
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
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
