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

Stephen Stead steads at paveprime.com
Mon Mar 11 22:29:28 EET 2019


I am with George on this.

The fact that substantial things have a 1:1 relationship with an STV does not warrant the E92 superclass status IMHO. 

It makes for horrible confusion and lots of “special case” rules and ………….

Please let us avoid this.

Rgds

SdS

 

 

Stephen Stead

Tel +44 20 8668 3075 

Mob +44 7802 755 013

E-mail  <mailto:steads at paveprime.com> steads at paveprime.com

LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/

 

From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> On Behalf Of George Bruseker
Sent: 11 March 2019 19:52
To: Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
Cc: crm-sig <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between E2, E4, E52 and E92

 

Dear all,

 

To wade into the muddy waters, I would venture that having E92 as superclass of E4 and E18 is finally something that may just create confusion. It is not actually the case that a thing IS its space time volume. A thing necessarily HAS a STV so long as it is substantial, but the things we say about the STV of a thing and what we say about the thing itself are distinct. The convenience we get from making E92 the super class of E18 and E4 seems to come at the price of this confusion, and the ability to put temporality on physical things directly, something we have tried to avoid. If we do however remain committed to it having this superclass status, then it seems we should have to put in some instructions on how you are able and not able to use the properties that it lends downwards to its children classes.

 

Best,

 

George

 

 

------------------------------------------------------

Dr. George Bruseker
Coordinator

Centre for Cultural Informatics
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
Science and Technology Park of Crete
Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Tel.: +30 2810 391619   Fax: +30 2810 391638   E-mail: bruseker at ics.forth.gr <mailto:bruseker at ics.forth.gr> 
URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl





On Mar 9, 2019, at 1:37 PM, Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr> > wrote:

 

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  <mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr  <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr> <martin at ics.forth.gr>
Date: Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 9:43 AM
To: crm-sig  <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> <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:               <x-msg://34/#_E2_Temporal_Entity> E2 Temporal Entity
Range:                 <x-msg://34/#_E52_Time-Span> E52 Time-Span
Quantification:    many to one, necessary, dependent (1,1:1,n)

P160  has temporal projection (is temporal projection of)
Domain:  <x-msg://34/#_E92_Spacetime_Volume> E92 Spacetime Volume 
Range:  <x-msg://34/#_E52_Time-Span> E52 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:               <x-msg://34/#_E4_Period> E4 Period
Range:                 <x-msg://34/#_E53_Place> 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:  <x-msg://34/#_E92_Spacetime_Volume> E92 Spacetime Volume 
Range:  <x-msg://34/#_E53_Place> E53 Place
Superproperty of:  <x-msg://34/#_E18_Physical_Thing> E18 Physical Thing.  <x-msg://34/#_P153_assigned_co-reference> P156 occupies (is occupied by):  <x-msg://34/#_E53_Place> 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).

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:  <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr> martin at ics.forth.gr  
 Web-site:  <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> 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:  <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr> martin at ics.forth.gr  
 Web-site:  <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl 

_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
 <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
 <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20190311/db58a9cd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list