Dear Steve, Wish you a good and complete recovery. Take care of yourself. Look forward to seeing you when you are back travelling again.
Best, George On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 10:07 AM Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Stephen, > I was afraid thar you would not be able to travel to Crete. But you seem > be taken well care of, and I hope you will recover well! > > The spring meeting 2026 will be on Oxford, the fall meeting in Nuremberg > and in 2027 the spring meeting is planned to be in Cologne. > Best, > Christian-Emil > ------------------------------ > *Fra:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> på vegne av Stephen Stead > via Crm-sig <[email protected]> > *Sendt:* tirsdag 7. oktober 2025 00:08 > *Til:* crm-sig <[email protected]> > *Emne:* [Crm-sig] Crete SIG October 2025 > > I am going to have to pull out of the meeting. > I have been in hospital for 16 days, and need > 5 more weeks of IV antibiotics but at home, so need a special line putting > into my arm. This may take one or two days to complete. > I will be unable to travel till Mid-November. > Do we have any SIG dates for meetings in Crete that I can move my flight > tickets to? > Sent from Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > ------------------------------ > *From:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of > Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 6, 2025 1:53:32 PM > *To:* crm-sig <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 692 Inverse properties in FOL > > Dear all, > The original idea in Issue 692 "Inverse properties in FOL" was to get rid > of the use if the 'i' notation indicating the use of the inverse of a > given property, as for example in the definition of P2 (page 119): > P2: This property is a shortcut for the path from E1 CRM Entity through *P41i > was classified by (classified), *E17 Type Assignment, *P42 assigned (was > assigned by) *to E55 Type. > P2(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [E17(z)] ∧ P41i(x,z) ∧ P42(z,y)] > > The suggestion was not welcomed by the SIG and as the example above shows > it can be handy. The proposal is dropped and instead one should write a > short text to be put into the introduction (the part about FOL formalism). > > Suggestion (addition marked with yellow at page 23): > > In contrast, first-order logic-based knowledge representation relies on a > language for formally encoding an ontology. This language can be directly > put in correspondence with semantic data modelling in a straightforward way: > > - classes are named by *unary predicate symbols*; conventionally, we > use E21 as the unary predicate symbol corresponding to class E21 Person; > - properties are named by *binary predicate symbols*; conventionally, > we use P152 as the binary predicate symbol corresponding to property *P152 > has parent (is parent of).* > - properties of properties, “.1 properties” are named by *ternary > predicate symbols*; conventionally, we use P14.1 as the ternary > predicate symbol corresponding to property *P14.1 in the role of.* > - Inverse of properties are indicated using an ‘i’ after the number. > So *P152i is parent of (has parent) *is the inverse of* P152 has > parent (is parent of). *In the First-Order representation the > arguments are swapped so P152(x,y) is equivalent to P152i(y,x). > > The second part of the HW: to check if swapping arguments are used in the > FOL axioms: > P5: > [P5(x,y) ∧ P5(y,z)] ⇒ P5(x,z) > P5(x,y) ⇒ ¬P5(y,x) > > and all the other anti-symmetric ones. In my opinion it is ok to leave > them as is. In the FOL for the fully developed paths only the inverse were > used. > > > Best, > Christian-Emil > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
