[Crm-sig] CORRECTION new issue the scope note for P134 continued, NOT P10

[Christian-Emil Ore]

Dear all
In the study of issue 195, I did a close reading of the scope note of 
P134 continued:

"This property allows two activities to be related where the domain is 
considered as an intentional continuation of the range.

  Used multiple times, this allows a chain of related activities to be 
created which follow each other in sequence."

Assume ‘A P134 continued B’. The first part of the scope note does not 
mention time or sequence. Thus, even though B occurs in time within A, A 
could be seen as a continuation of B. For example the activities of a 
company bought by another company or a country which is taken over by 
another country (DDR -> BRD) could be continued by the activities of the 
buying firm or the annexing country.

The second sentence at least hits that A has to follow B in time.  In 
any case A cannot occur before or be equal to B in time.
In general on should check the properties involving time relations and 
include information about the allen operators to avoid inconsistencies.

Proposal:

The scope note should be more explicit on the temporal aspect. That is, 
include a third paragraph/sentence on the line of

"The property does only subsume that an activity continuing another does 
not occur before the other activity  in time and is not equal in time .”



C-E Ore