[Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRM issue
sesuncedu at gmail.com
Tue May 13 00:51:45 EEST 2014
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Stead <steads at paveprime.com> wrote:
> The question is not could we generalise the property to E2 but are
> there potential instances of E2 that are not E3's or E4's that potentially
> do not have decomposition. I do not know and additionally I am not sure I
> want to
> spend a lot of time making sure that by their very nature all E2's
> are decomposable!!
This actually a rather significant ontological decision.
If there are temporal entities that cannot be so divided then the
underlying temporal ontology is *discrete. *
If every temporal entity can always be so decomposed, then the underlying
temporal ontology is *dense*.
CRM is committed to a dense ontology (because of the approximate model of
time points, and the rejection of any momentary events*) , so it would seem
all E2 must be decomposable.
It is of course, not the case that the type of every part is the same as
the type of the whole; conversely, there may be certain granularities where
each part *is* of the same type - e.g. the granularity of a step, each part
of a walk is also a walk.
* e.g. "the upward velocity of the ball I just tossed becoming zero" is not
considered to be momentary, in spite of calculus, because the precise
beginning and end points are cannot be defined as equal, just not
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig