I am with George on this.
The fact that substantial things have a 1:1 relationship with an STV
does not warrant the E92 superclass status IMHO.
It makes for horrible confusion and lots of “special case” rules and ………….
Please let us avoid this.
Rgds
SdS
Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail ste...@paveprime.com <mailto:ste...@paveprime.com>
LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/
*From:*Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> *On Behalf Of *George
Bruseker
*Sent:* 11 March 2019 19:52
*To:* Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr>
*Cc:* crm-sig <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between
E2, E4, E52 and E92
Dear all,
To wade into the muddy waters, I would venture that having E92 as
superclass of E4 and E18 is finally something that may just create
confusion. It is not actually the case that a thing IS its space time
volume. A thing necessarily HAS a STV so long as it is substantial,
but the things we say about the STV of a thing and what we say about
the thing itself are distinct. The convenience we get from making E92
the super class of E18 and E4 seems to come at the price of this
confusion, and the ability to put temporality on physical things
directly, something we have tried to avoid. If we do however remain
committed to it having this superclass status, then it seems we should
have to put in some instructions on how you are able and not able to
use the properties that it lends downwards to its children classes.
Best,
George
------------------------------------------------------
Dr. George Bruseker
Coordinator
Centre for Cultural Informatics
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
Science and Technology Park of Crete
Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Tel.: +30 2810 391619 Fax: +30 2810 391638 E-mail:
bruse...@ics.forth.gr <mailto:bruse...@ics.forth.gr>
URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
On Mar 9, 2019, at 1:37 PM, Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr
<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
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>
<mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>on behalf of Martin
Doerr<mar...@ics.forth.gr> <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
*Date:*Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 9:43 AM
*To:*crm-sig<Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> <mailto: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 <x-msg://34/#_E2_Temporal_Entity>Temporal Entity
Range: E52 <x-msg://34/#_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 <x-msg://34/#_E92_Spacetime_Volume>Spacetime Volume
Range:E52 <x-msg://34/#_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 <x-msg://34/#_E4_Period>Period
Range: E53 <x-msg://34/#_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 <x-msg://34/#_E92_Spacetime_Volume>Spacetime Volume
Range:E53 <x-msg://34/#_E53_Place>Place
Superproperty of:E18 <x-msg://34/#_E18_Physical_Thing>Physical
Thing.P156 <x-msg://34/#_P153_assigned_co-reference>occupies
(is occupied by):E53 <x-msg://34/#_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 <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
