Dear all, The question is: If an instance x of E4 Period took place at an instance y of E53 place, can we conclude that x took place at all places containing y? This was explicitly stated in CRMbase before the September meeting. The decission in Rome was to reformulate this as
Therefore, this property implies the more fully developed path from E4 Period through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where the intermediate place is also defined in the same geometric system. FOL: P7(x,y) ⇒ (∃z,u) [E53(z) ˄ P157(x,u) ˄ E18(u) ˄ P157(y,u) ˄ P157(z,u) ˄ P161(x,z) ˄ P89(z,y) ] or simplified P7(x,y) ⇒ P161(x,z) ˄ P89(z,y) ] The answer to the question is that P7(x,y) ∧ P89(y,z) ⇒ P7(x,z) is in general is not considered true. This axiom has to be reintroduced if this is the general understanding. It is not needed in practical database/KB implementations. Best, Christian-Emil
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
