Dear Thanasis, > Example for S15 Observable Entity: > > • the flight of a male Bearded Vulture observed over Heraklion, Crete > in the morning of the 24th of October 2020 (E5) (Claes, 2020) > Claes, J. (2020) Bearded Vulture - Gypaetus barbatus, Observation.org. > Available at:https://observation.org/observation/203043133/ (Accessed: 20 > December 2022).
According to the linked webpage, the Bearded Vulture was observed near the village of Loukia, in the south of the regional unit of Iraklio. > Example for S19 Encounter Event: > • the encounter of the marble floor of the Villa of the Papyri in > Herculaneum during the digging of a well in 1750 (S19) (Koekoe, 2017) > Koekoe, J. (2017) ‘Herculaneum: Villa of the Papyri – World History et > cetera’, 17 January. Available at: > https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/villa-papyri/ (Accessed: 20 December > 2022). The linked webpage doesn't mention a marble floor. > • the encounter of oak planks from a ship during a dig in a mound at > the farm Lille Oseberg in Norway in 1908 (S19) (‘Oseberg Ship’, Wikipedia, > 2022) > ‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) Wikipedia. Available at: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship&oldid=1127078631 > (Accessed: 20 December 2022). According to the linked Wikipedia page it was excavated 1904–1905, so the encounter of oak planks was likely in 1904? And I assume from the example that these oak planks were the first part of the ship that was found, but the article doesn't say this. > Example for O19 encountered object: > • The encounter of a marble floor during the digging of a well in 1750 > (S19) encountered object the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum (E18). > (Koekoe, 2017) > Koekoe, J. (2017) ‘Herculaneum: Villa of the Papyri – World History et > cetera’, 17 January. Available at: > https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/villa-papyri/ (Accessed: 20 December > 2022). see above > • The encounter of oak planks from a ship during a dig in a mound at > the farm Lille Oseberg in Norway, in 1908 (S19) encountered object the > Oseberg Ship (E18). (‘Oseberg Ship’, Wikipedia, 2022) > ‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) Wikipedia. Available at: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship&oldid=1127078631 > (Accessed: 20 December 2022). see above > Example for O21 encountered at: > > • The encounter of the Oseberg Ship in 1908 (S19) encountered at the > farm Lille Oseberg in Norway (E53). (‘Oseberg Ship’, Wikipedia, 2022) > ‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) Wikipedia. Available at: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship&oldid=1127078631 > (Accessed: 20 December 2022). I think the example should be like this: The encounter of the Oseberg Ship in 1908 (S19) encountered at The phenomenal place of the encounter of the Oseberg Ship (E53) [P89 falls within: the farm Lille Oseberg in Norway] The argument is the same as in the example of the Sphaerosyllis levantina specimens in Haifa Bay: Otherwise you would state that the phenomenal place of the Encounter Event contains the whole farm, which I don’t think is true. > Examples for O31 has validity time-span: > > • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by captain Smith after > hitting an iceberg (S23) has validity time-span from 15 April 1912 23:40 to > 15 April 1912 00:15 (E52) [This was the time-span between hitting the iceberg > and ordering for a distress signal (time-span A). Captain Smith measured the > position during a time-span B within time-span A. [The two time-spans can be > related with property 'P86 falls within'] (Tikkanen, 2022) The O31 scope note, version in the email from 24.11.2022: > This property associates an instance of S23 Position Measurement with the > instance of E53 Time-Span for which the measurement is valid. No inferences > can be made in relation to the validity of the measurement outside this > time-span despite the fact that some measured entities are relatively stable > and their positions may remain the same after the measurement. The time-span > of validity should fall within (P86 falls within (contains)) the overall > time-span (P4 has time-span (is time-span of) of the process of measurement. Did this change since then? Because in your example it seems to be the other way round, the time-span of validity (A) contains the time-span of the measurement (B). In the same email, O31 is declared as a subproperty of P4 has time-span. But P4 denotes the phenomenal time-span of a temporal entity. This doesn’t seem to fit with either version? Or what would be the temporal entity whose phenomenal time-span is the validity time-span of the measurement? And out of curiosity: How does the concept of a validity time-span relate to E3 Condition State ("the time-span for which a certain condition can be asserted may be shorter than the real time-span, for which this condition held“)? Best, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
