Dear Wolfgang,
I do not agree with your conclusions.
The FOL formalisation is NOT about publicly available place
attestations. This has not be said anywhere. Generally, the FOL
statements are not constraint by known knowledge. If you question this,
or require in the FOL to distinguish known knowledge from ontologically
necessary one, we need another issue😁.
The spatial projection of the move is a P7. It exists regardless
knowledge. The origin location and the destination has a spatial
projection as well. It exists regardless knowledge, and must fall within
the move path.
It is simply a necessary condition for P26, part of its definition.
Therefore, if the destination place is to be approximated, it should be
within an approximation of the move path.
As such, it does not behave like P7.
Opinions?
Best,
Martin
On 10/28/2022 10:55 AM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:
An even easier example to see that the FOL formalisation is wrong is a stolen painting
with unknown whereabouts. In this case there is a place attestation of the origin but no
(publicly available) place attestation of the move at all, unless we argue with an
implicit "move took place at Planet Earth".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stolen_paintings#Unrecovered
Am 26.10.2022 um 13:00 schrieb Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig
<crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>:
Dear All,
The scope note of P26 "moved to" says:
The area of the move includes the origin(s), route and destination(s).
I have no issue with that. However, I think the formalisation is not correct:
Therefore, the described destination is an instance of E53 Place which P89
falls within (contains) the instance of E53 Place the move P7 took place at.
P26(x,y) ⇒ (∃z) [E53(z) ∧ P7(x,z) ∧ P89(y,z)]
I assume that P26 behaves in the same way as P7, ie. there are some
attestations and one can infer the best approximation. Now take this scenario:
* a single, very precise attestation of the whole move
* one additional larger attestation of the destination
In this scenario there is no attested place of the move that contains the
attested place of the destination. Note that I don't claim this scenario to be
particularly plausible or realistic, but it doesn't have to be. It is just a
counterexample to show that the formalisation cannot be correct.
Instead we need to compare either the phenomenal places, in which case it is no
longer a statement about P26, or our current best knowledge about move and
destination. We could say that an attestation of the move is also an
attestation of the destination:
P26(x,y) ⇐ E9(x) ∧ P7(x,y)
In the scenario above we can now infer that the intersection of the two
attestations is a new approximation of the destination.
And of course the same for P27 "moved from".
Side note: This would make P7 a "quasi subproperty" of P26/P27, i.e. a subproperty on a subclass of
its domain, although the direction from P7 to P26/P27 is perhaps less intuitive than the direction in e.g.
P161 "has spatial projection" being a "quasi subproperty" of P7.
Side side note: However, if the S2 and S2a in the other thread are supposed to be different, one
consequence would be that P161(x,y) ∧ E4(x) ⇒ P7(x,y) can no longer be true. Another way to come to
the same conclusion: it would imply that the phenomenal place is automatically the best known P7
approximation of itself. Perhaps one could call P161 a "phenomenal property" and P7, P26
and P27 "declarative properties".
Best,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
