Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

2024-02-19 Thread Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 

Dear Thanasi, Eleni,

It is not clear to me why this is a concern. Both full paths shortcut 
different properties, P7 and P167. So, both should be mentioned. Raising 
a property to E92 is a different issue, ins't it?


My concerns, to be discussed, are if the falls within requires 
necessarily that both places are at rest.


Best,

Martin

On 2/19/2024 9:56 AM, Eleni Tsouloucha via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

maybe reconsider this piece of HW given the concerns voiced by Thanasis?

best
E

On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 5:23 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
 wrote:


In version 7.2.3 (if I have the correct file in front of me) we have
already added the following:

"This property is a part of the fully developed path from E93
Presence
through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within
(contains) to E53 Place."

This is the path from E93 Presence instead of E4 Period (both being
subclasses of E92 Spacetime Volume).

If it applies to both E4 and E93, should we push it a step up to E92
Spacetime Volume which actually owns P161 has spatial projection
in the
first place?

All the best,

Thanasis

On 02/02/2024 14:15, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
> Accepted!
>
> But, it seems it should be:
>
> "This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls
wholly
> within the extent of another instance of E53 Place, where both
places
> are defined in the same geometric system, i.e. they are at rest
to each
> other.
>
> It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any
> relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.
>
> This property is also part of the fully developed path implied
by P7
> /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has
spatial
> projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place.
>
> This property is transitive and reflexive.
>
> in FOL:
>
> P89(x,y) ⇒(∃u) [E18(u) ⋀P157(x,u) ⋀P157(y,u)]
>
> Then we can simplify the FOL of P7, and add the above FOL to
P121,122,189
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On 2/2/2024 12:28 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:
>>
>> The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the
statement “It
>> addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any
relationship
>> between things or phenomena occupying these places.”, which it
is not.
>>
>> I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-
>>
>> This property is also part of the fully developed path implied
by P7
>> /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has
spatial
>> projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both
>> places are defined in the same geometric system.
>>
>> Stephen Stead
>>
>> Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013
>>
>> ste...@paveprime.com
>>
>> *From:*Crm-sig  *On Behalf Of
*Martin
>> Doerr via Crm-sig
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:05 PM
>> *To:* crm-sig 
>> *Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in
yellow:
>>
>>
>> P89 falls within (contains)
>>
>> Domain:
>>
>> E53 <#_toc8104> Place
>>
>> Range:
>>
>> E53 <#_toc8104> Place
>>
>> Quantification:
>>
>> many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)
>>
>> Scope note:
>>
>> This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls
wholly
>> within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.
>>
>> It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any
>> relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.
>>
>> However, this property is also part of the fully developed path
>> implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period
through P161
>> has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place,
>> where both places are defined in the same geometric system.
>>
>> This property is transitive and reflexive.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53)
/falls
>> within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)
>>
>> In first-order logic:
>>
>> P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)
>>
>> P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)
>>
>> [P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)
>>
>> P89(x,x)
>>
>> --
>> 
>>   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
>>
>> Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

2024-02-19 Thread Eleni Tsouloucha via Crm-sig 
Dear all,

maybe reconsider this piece of HW given the concerns voiced by Thanasis?

best
E

On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 5:23 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:

> In version 7.2.3 (if I have the correct file in front of me) we have
> already added the following:
>
> "This property is a part of the fully developed path from E93 Presence
> through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within
> (contains) to E53 Place."
>
> This is the path from E93 Presence instead of E4 Period (both being
> subclasses of E92 Spacetime Volume).
>
> If it applies to both E4 and E93, should we push it a step up to E92
> Spacetime Volume which actually owns P161 has spatial projection in the
> first place?
>
> All the best,
>
> Thanasis
>
> On 02/02/2024 14:15, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
> > Accepted!
> >
> > But, it seems it should be:
> >
> > "This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly
> > within the extent of another instance of E53 Place, where both places
> > are defined in the same geometric system, i.e. they are at rest to each
> > other.
> >
> > It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any
> > relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.
> >
> > This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7
> > /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial
> > projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place.
> >
> > This property is transitive and reflexive.
> >
> > in FOL:
> >
> > P89(x,y) ⇒(∃u) [E18(u) ⋀P157(x,u) ⋀P157(y,u)]
> >
> > Then we can simplify the FOL of P7, and add the above FOL to P121,122,189
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/2/2024 12:28 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:
> >>
> >> The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the statement “It
> >> addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any relationship
> >> between things or phenomena occupying these places.”, which it is not.
> >>
> >> I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-
> >>
> >> This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7
> >> /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial
> >> projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both
> >> places are defined in the same geometric system.
> >>
> >> Stephen Stead
> >>
> >> Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013
> >>
> >> ste...@paveprime.com
> >>
> >> *From:*Crm-sig  *On Behalf Of *Martin
> >> Doerr via Crm-sig
> >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:05 PM
> >> *To:* crm-sig 
> >> *Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:
> >>
> >>
> >> P89 falls within (contains)
> >>
> >> Domain:
> >>
> >> E53 <#_toc8104> Place
> >>
> >> Range:
> >>
> >> E53 <#_toc8104> Place
> >>
> >> Quantification:
> >>
> >> many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)
> >>
> >> Scope note:
> >>
> >> This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly
> >> within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.
> >>
> >> It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any
> >> relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.
> >>
> >> However, this property is also part of the fully developed path
> >> implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161
> >> has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place,
> >> where both places are defined in the same geometric system.
> >>
> >> This property is transitive and reflexive.
> >>
> >> Examples:
> >>
> >> The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) /falls
> >> within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)
> >>
> >> In first-order logic:
> >>
> >> P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)
> >>
> >> P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)
> >>
> >> [P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)
> >>
> >> P89(x,x)
> >>
> >> --
> >> 
> >>   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
> >>
> >>   Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr
> >>   Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
> >
> >
> > --
> > 
> >   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
> >
> >   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
> ___
>

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

2024-02-04 Thread Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
In version 7.2.3 (if I have the correct file in front of me) we have 
already added the following:


"This property is a part of the fully developed path from E93 Presence 
through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within 
(contains) to E53 Place."


This is the path from E93 Presence instead of E4 Period (both being 
subclasses of E92 Spacetime Volume).


If it applies to both E4 and E93, should we push it a step up to E92 
Spacetime Volume which actually owns P161 has spatial projection in the 
first place?


All the best,

Thanasis

On 02/02/2024 14:15, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Accepted!

But, it seems it should be:

"This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place, where both places 
are defined in the same geometric system, i.e. they are at rest to each 
other.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

in FOL:

P89(x,y) ⇒(∃u) [E18(u) ⋀P157(x,u) ⋀P157(y,u)]

Then we can simplify the FOL of P7, and add the above FOL to P121,122,189

Best,

Martin



On 2/2/2024 12:28 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:


The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the statement “It 
addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any relationship 
between things or phenomena occupying these places.”, which it is not.


I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-

This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both 
places are defined in the same geometric system.


Stephen Stead

Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013

ste...@paveprime.com

*From:*Crm-sig  *On Behalf Of *Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig

*Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:05 PM
*To:* crm-sig 
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

Dear all,

I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:


P89 falls within (contains)

Domain:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Range:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Quantification:

many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


However, this property is also part of the fully developed path 
implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 
has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, 
where both places are defined in the same geometric system.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

Examples:

The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) /falls 
within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)


In first-order logic:

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)

[P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)

P89(x,x)

--

  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

  Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl



--

  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

  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

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

2024-02-02 Thread Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 

Dear All,

Alternatively, we can assume that both places are not completely at rest 
to each other, but that the geometric relation holds for all times, for 
example, a boat swimming in a lake will be for all times a place for 
people in it, which falls within the lake boundaries.


In that case, both places must fulfill the same relation in their 
geometric reference systems at any time  these places exist together. 
Existence of a place means that there exists at least one and the same 
physical thing it is always at rest to. At a particular instance in 
time, all extents in different geometric reference systems can be mapped 
(projected) to each other, with the precision the origin of the systems 
is known. This mapping would be the base for comparing two places moving 
relative to each other.


I remember we discussed that, but never spelled out.

Best,

Martin



On 2/2/2024 4:15 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Accepted!

But, it seems it should be:

"This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place, where both places 
are defined in the same geometric system, i.e. they are at rest to 
each other.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

in FOL:

P89(x,y) ⇒(∃u) [E18(u) ⋀P157(x,u) ⋀P157(y,u)]

Then we can simplify the FOL of P7, and add the above FOL to P121,122,189

Best,

Martin



On 2/2/2024 12:28 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:


The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the statement 
“It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.”, 
which it is not.


I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-

This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both 
places are defined in the same geometric system.


Stephen Stead

Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013

ste...@paveprime.com

*From:*Crm-sig  *On Behalf Of *Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig

*Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:05 PM
*To:* crm-sig 
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

Dear all,

I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:


P89 falls within (contains)

Domain:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Range:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Quantification:

many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


However, this property is also part of the fully developed path 
implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through 
P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 
Place, where both places are defined in the same geometric system.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

Examples:

The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) 
/falls within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)


In first-order logic:

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)

[P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)

P89(x,x)

--

  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

  Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl



--

  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

  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



--

 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
   
 Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
 Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

2024-02-02 Thread Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 

Accepted!

But, it seems it should be:

"This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place, where both places 
are defined in the same geometric system, i.e. they are at rest to each 
other.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

in FOL:

P89(x,y) ⇒(∃u) [E18(u) ⋀P157(x,u) ⋀P157(y,u)]

Then we can simplify the FOL of P7, and add the above FOL to P121,122,189

Best,

Martin



On 2/2/2024 12:28 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:


The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the statement “It 
addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any relationship 
between things or phenomena occupying these places.”, which it is not.


I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-

This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both 
places are defined in the same geometric system.


Stephen Stead

Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013

ste...@paveprime.com

*From:*Crm-sig  *On Behalf Of *Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig

*Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:05 PM
*To:* crm-sig 
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

Dear all,

I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:


P89 falls within (contains)

Domain:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Range:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Quantification:

many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


However, this property is also part of the fully developed path 
implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 
has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, 
where both places are defined in the same geometric system.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

Examples:

The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) /falls 
within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)


In first-order logic:

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)

[P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)

P89(x,x)

--

  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

  Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl



--

 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
   
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework,

2024-02-02 Thread Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 

Dear All,

We just observed that the FOL statements of P89 should also contain the 
formulation that both places need to be at rest to each other (i.e., 
fall into the same geometric system). This needs to be checked for all 
place to place relations.


On 2/1/2024 9:04 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:

P89 falls within (contains)

Domain:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Range:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Quantification:

many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


However, this property is also part of the fully developed path 
implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 
has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, 
where both places are defined in the same geometric system.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

Examples:

The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) /falls 
within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)


In first-order logic:

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)

[P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)

P89(x,x)

--

  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

  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



--

 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
   
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

2024-02-02 Thread Stephen Stead via Crm-sig 
The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the statement “It 
addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any relationship between 
things or phenomena occupying these places.”, which it is not.
I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-
This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 took place 
at (witnessed), from E4 Period through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, 
P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both places are defined in the same 
geometric system.

Stephen Stead
Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013
ste...@paveprime.com

From: Crm-sig  On Behalf Of Martin Doerr via 
Crm-sig
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:05 PM
To: crm-sig 
Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

Dear all,

I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:



P89 falls within (contains)

Domain:

E53 Place

Range:

E53 Place

Quantification:

many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly within the 
extent of another instance of E53 Place.

It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any relationship 
between things or phenomena occupying these places.

However, this property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
took place at (witnessed), from E4 Period through P161 has spatial projection, 
E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both places are defined in the 
same geometric system.

This property is transitive and reflexive.

Examples:

  The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) falls within 
the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)

In first-order logic:

P89(x,y) ⇒ E53(x)

P89(x,y) ⇒ E53(y)

[P89(x,y) ∧ P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)

P89(x,x)

--



 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



 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