Dear Martin,
Seeing E4 Period as a type of E92 Space Time Volume is a stretch, but in some
sense it feels natural. Period is a temporal entity stretching out in time so
the similarity to the more general Space Time Volume is in some sense natural.
On the other hand, saying that E18 Physical Thing isa E92 Space Time Volume
feels strange. Does that not amount to saying that in some sense a thing IS its
extension in space and time?
I see the arguments for simplification but the inheritance also needs to be
ontologically true. Is it? Can something be a space-time thing and a endurant
at the same time?
Maybe this establishes a multiple inheritance in E18 Physical Thing as a link
between the 3D and the 4D world. What would Plato say to that?
;-)
Regards,
Øyvind
On 28. jan. 2015, at 22:45, martin wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I propose E4 Period and E18 Physical Thing to become subclass
> of E92 Space Time Volume, in the sense of the phenomenal spatiotemporal
> extent, which is necessaryly one-to-one. This will greatly simplify dealing
> with topological relations between things and periods, and restore
> consistency that Allen relations are directly attached to the temporal
> entity rather than its time-span.
> It does not create any existence-period conflict with E4 or E18.
>
> It further simplifies use of Snapshot to say where things are during some
> time-span.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> --
> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625|
> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>| Email:
> mar...@ics.forth.gr
> |
> |
>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 |
> |
> 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
