Dear Wolfgang, we had just spotted the first weak shortcut at P7, and I
think another one.
On 10/19/2022 5:59 PM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:
And another one: Are there really no "weak inverse" shortcuts?
Meghini & Doerr 2018 argue that weak inverse shortcuts are possible, although
Aha, this belongs to issue 613. I didn’t see it before.
> Am 19.10.2022 um 16:59 schrieb Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig
> :
>
> And another one: Are there really no "weak inverse" shortcuts?
>
> Meghini & Doerr 2018 argue that weak inverse shortcuts are possible, although
> their example
I think there is no inconsistency, the axiom always derives the current
location of the object. At different times, the object may be located in
different places, but this is no inconsistency, as the current location
is never written into the KB, it is always derived (via the axiom) on
the
And another one: Are there really no "weak inverse" shortcuts?
Meghini & Doerr 2018 argue that weak inverse shortcuts are possible, although
their example looks a little artificial:
E18 Physical Thing P53 has former or current location E53 Place
implies
E18 Physical Thing P161 has spatial
Dear Carlo,
If the scopenote text describe the a world or a model for the theory, it is
true. More formalistic: If I add this second move to a knowledge base, then
there are no formal way to detect that the knowledge base is inconsistent?
Best,
Christian-Emil
Hello,
I don't see a reason why they should be named differently in the FOL.
Neither do I, I forgot why we did not use the ".1" notation in FOL.
Maybe because it's a bit unconventional, but then, we can do what we
want ...
Carlo
Best,
Wolfgang
Now that Carlo has entered the conversation, I have another one:
The .1 properties are called e.g. P14(x,y,z) in the FOL expressions. However,
everywhere else they are called e.g. P14.1:
* Introduction, "About the logical expressions used in the CIDOC CRM": "we use
P14.1 as the ternary
Dear Christian-Emil
I don't think that the axiom contradicts the scopenote text. In those
worlds where there is a move w taking x away from y and w is after z (so
the antecedent is false), P55(x,y) (the consequent) is false as well but
the axiom still holds.
Carlo
Il 19/10/22 13:23,
In the scope notes of the "current" properties it is written that, say, P55 has
current location, P55(x,y) is the case if and only if the physical object x is
not moved from the place y at a later date than it was moved to y. Expressed in
ordinary FOL (without any requirement of open world
