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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Sat Mar 9 23:37:22 EET 2019


Dear Robert,

In the first place, E2 has a substance of "phenomena" something 
"becoming" "changing" "moving", "interacting". In addition, we interpret 
it now also more statically as including a sort of maintaining 
something. It is necessarily connected to some "things" on which such 
interactions, changes or temporary, non-essential formation of 
properties happen, but we have seen so far no good general way to 
describe the ways of involvement at the level of E2.

E92 is nothing of that kind. It is just spacetime, the generalized space 
in which we live and think, not what is there not what happens there. It 
is just a "where". It is further a volume in that space, i.e., it must 
have some inner part, and a surface as fuzzy as it may be, and a way to 
identify it.

We connect E4 and E18 with E92 as second superclass in order to describe 
a necessary one-to-one combination, in order to save the trivial links 
between them. We could do that with E2 too, but the space in which 
things like "being married" occur can hardly be seen as volumes with a 
surface. In contrast, I can be in the meeting (E4) or outside, in the 
battle or outside, even though the fuzziness between being inside and 
outside is very high.

Therefore, I would exclude both, E2 being subclass of E92 or superclass.

The discussion to which degree we should regard any E18 as ongoing 
interactions in spacetime is old and endless. We have so far rather 
preferred to think of a fundamental difference between "becoming" and 
"being" as a psychological and linguistic phenomenon, because this is 
the most adequate to the way people document things. The problem now is 
that by introducing E92 we are again confronted with the borderlines 
between the change itself and the changing thing, the thing that 
persists over time, but yet is limited in time, the things that are 
somewhere, but constitute a "where" for others.

Would that make sense:-)?

Best,

Martin

On 3/7/2019 11:35 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Rob
>
> *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 <#_E2_Temporal_Entity> Temporal Entity
> Range: E52 <#_E52_Time-Span> Time-Span
> Quantification:    many to one, necessary, dependent (1,1:1,n)
>
> P160  has temporal projection (is temporal projection of)
> Domain: E92 <#_E92_Spacetime_Volume> Spacetime Volume
> Range: E52 <#_E52_Time-Span> Time-Span
> Quantification: one to one (1,1:1,1)
>
>
> In FOL:
>
> 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.
>
> ================================================
>
> Further:
>
> P7 took place at (witnessed)
> Domain: E4 <#_E4_Period> Period
> Range: E53 <#_E53_Place> 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 <#_E92_Spacetime_Volume> Spacetime Volume
> Range: E53 <#_E53_Place> Place
> Superproperty of: E18 <#_E18_Physical_Thing> Physical Thing. P156 
> <#_P153_assigned_co-reference> occupies (is occupied by): E53 
> <#_E53_Place> 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).
>
> Opinions?
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------
>   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
>   
>   Vox:+30(2810)391625
>   Email:martin at ics.forth.gr  <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>   
>   Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl  


-- 
------------------------------------
  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
  
  Vox:+30(2810)391625
  Email: 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/20190309/642eb8b9/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list