[Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between E2, E4, E52 and E92

Robert Sanderson RSanderson at getty.edu
Thu Mar 7 23:35:05 EET 2019

Hi all,

I’m sure there’s a good reason why this is not a good idea, and if I had been at the meetings since the early days I surely would know why it’s not a good idea … but …

Could E92 not be a sub class of E2, if we were to separate out E3 Condition State in the work to model States / Phases more thoroughly?
Then P160 could just be deprecated in favor of P4?  P10, P132 and P133 are all still valuable, as they include the intersection of space as well as of time.

My first thought was that the properties of E2 other than P4 are not applicable to E18 (and descendants) … but if P160 is, and P132/P133 are, then there must be some temporality that can have a start and end, as given in the temporal projection.   The temporal projection of Rob starts after the start of the temporal projection of Rob’s mother seems like a reasonable thing to assert, if we can have timespans/temporal projections.


From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
Date: Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 9:43 AM
To: crm-sig <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between E2, E4, E52 and E92

Dear All,

We consider the following properties:

P4 has time-span (is time-span of)
Domain:              E2 Temporal Entity
Range:                E52 Time-Span
Quantification:    many to one, necessary, dependent (1,1:1,n)

P160  has temporal projection (is temporal projection of)
Domain: E92 Spacetime Volume
Range: E52 Time-Span
Quantification: one to one (1,1:1,1)


P4(x,y) ⊃ E2(x), P4(x,y) ⊃ E52(y)
P160(x,y) ⊃ E92(x), P160(x,y)⊃ E52(y)
The problem comes from this: E4 Period being a spacetime volume and a temporal entity.

E4(x) ⊃ E2(x), E4(x) ⊃ E92(x)

I now propose to: declare P4, to imply P160  from E4 Period "downwards":

(P4(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P160(x,y), (P160(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P4(x,y).

We may then recommend to use only P4 from E4 Period downwards.

I do not know, if we would also need (P160(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P4(x,y) in order to make them identical from E4 downwards.



P7 took place at (witnessed)
Domain:              E4 Period
Range:                E53 Place

Quantification:    many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n)

"The related E53 Place should be seen as a wider approximation of the geometric area within which the phenomena that characterize the period in question occurred, see below."

P161 has spatial projection (is spatial projection of)
Domain: E92 Spacetime Volume
Range: E53 Place
Superproperty of: E18 Physical Thing. P156 occupies (is occupied by): E53 Place
Quantification: one to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:1,1)

Firstly, I believe the quantification of P161 must be Quantification:    many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n). A place needs not be the projection of a Spacetime Volume.

Then, in FOL:
P7(x,y) ⊃ E4(x), P7(x,y) ⊃ E53(y)
P161(x,y) ⊃ E92(x), P161(x,y) ⊃ E53(y)
I propose to add: The spatial projection of an E4 Period is a "took place at".
(P161(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P7(x,y).





 Dr. Martin Doerr

 Honorary Head of the

 Center for Cultural Informatics

 Information Systems Laboratory

 Institute of Computer Science

 Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)

 N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,

 GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece


 Email: martin at ics.forth.gr<mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>

 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20190307/763bb18e/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list