Dear George,
I agree that the E81 examples were not mature for e-vote. I completely
revised all examples as homework to be discussed tomorrow, because there
are more errors in them. More examples of course welcome. I maintain
that the multiclass examples are intrinsic to the whole idea of
tra
I agree with Rob on this one, No and for the same reasons. I don't think
that the multi class examples are a good idea. I think it gets into the
business of how to model which is decision on a case by case basis. I also
agree that the examples for changing a building have to do with a function
of t
I vote YES, proposing a further improvement of the Pompeii case:
On 10/7/2020 6:39 PM, van Leusen, P.M. wrote:
The death and the carbonization by the intense heat of a 300 °C gas
cloud (E69) of people of Pompeii resulted in petrified and later
preserved in plaster bodies (E22)
May be better:
I vote YES with a caveat, about the following line:
- The death and the carbonization by the intense heat of a 300 °C gas
cloud (E69) of the people of Pompeii resulted in petrified and later
preserved in plaster bodies (E22).
The addition of 'later preserved in plaster' introduces a po
NO
The examples are inconsistent with regards to the use of the class numbers,
both internally and in relation to other examples.
Secondly, the transformation should be physical -- the /use/ of a church as
a stable is not /necessarily/ a physical transformation. A clearer example
should be select
Dear all,
In 11/2018 a discussion was started to revise the scope note of E81
Transformation and to change the ranges of its relative properties p123 and
p124. In brief, it was argued that the range of the class was too broad
(E77 Persistent Item) and that it should be limited to E18 Physical Thin
