Dear All, I can now formulate more clearly the problem I have with the description of O21 "encountered at". If I understand it correctly, you are saying that the phenomenal place where the encountered things were observed to be present is within the phenomenal place of the S19 Encounter Event. I have no problem with this, and it seems comparable to saying that the phenomenal places of the origin and destinations of an E9 Move are within the phenomenal place of the move.
But in the scope note you say "the E53 Place at which the S19 Encounter Event took place". I think it should be more clear that "took place at" is not refering to P7 "took place at" but to P161 "had spatial projection“. The FOL axiom is clear about this. And in the example you are not using the phenomenal place but a larger declarative place, namely "Haifa Bay". According to the FOL axiom O21(x,y) ⇒ (∃z) [E53(z) ∧ P161(x,z) ∧ P89(y,z)], the consequence would be that the phenomenal place of the Encounter Event must contain Haifa Bay. I don't see why this should be the case, and I don't think this is what you want to express. Instead, you should take the examples in P160 as a blueprint. Concretely, the example should be something like (The Sphaerosyllis levantina specimens) O21 encountered at (the phenomenal place) [P89 falls within "Haifa Bay", or more precisely, P89 falls within "soft sediments of mixed grain sizes in shallow waters in Haifa Bay"] And finally about the FOL axiom O21(x,y) ⇒ (∃z) [E53(z) ∧ P161(x,z) ∧ P89(y,z)]: To make the axiom future-proof, we should have the shared reference space of y and z in mind. In its present form, the axiom claims that the existence of the phenomenal place y guarantees the existence of the (larger!) phenomenal place z of the Encounter Event in the same reference space. This is an ontological statement that may or may not be true, but neither here nor anywhere else have I seen an argument for it. (Note that this is not the same discussion as the one about P7(x,y) ⇒ (∃z) [E53(z) ∧ P161(x,z) ∧ P89(z,y)], where the inference arrow points from the larger to the smaller place.) So I think the existence of z needs to be assumed rather than inferred: O21(x,y) ∧ E53(z) ∧ P161(x,z) ⇒ P89(y,z) Curiously, I see exactly the same three problems with P26 "move to" and P27 "moved from". Best, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
