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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Mar 12 12:09:38 EET 2019


Dear Steve, George,

Your arguments well taken, I may remind you that the argument was not 
only a 1:1 relation.

It contained 4 elements:

a) a 1:1 relation
b) a common identity condition: The identity of the STV depends on the 
identity of the phenomenon
c) There existence conditions are identical: the one exists where and as 
long as the other
d) Properties do not interfere.

The condition d) becomes more tricky with the question of the time 
spans, as you have seen. Here, the question for me is not ontological, 
but of the logical formalism. As I have shown, it can be described in 
FOL. It is the only complication we have. We just declare two properties 
to be identical downwards.

The alternative you are advocating for is:
a) Fill the database with a very large number of necessary 1:1 links: 
events are some of the the most frequent items we have.
b) You have not solved anything wrt P160, because P4 is still the same 
as P160 in these cases, and the path of correspondence is even more 
confusing.

So, we just buy in a much more confusing schema, to my opinion. The 
schema is what we use on a daily base. Discussing CRM extensions is not 
the end-users interest, but the task of the SIG.

I believe we cannot avoid entering some complexity here in our 
discussions, and resolve it giving priority to the end-user schema.
I think the first arguments should be, if the final schema is confusing, 
and if the alternative is less confusing.

I am not sure where to publish adequately the above reasoning. It should 
be somewhere buried in the minutes. But we tried very hard to make the 
things clear in the scope notes of E4, E18.

What do you think?

All the best,

Martin


On 3/11/2019 10:29 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:
>
> 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 steads at paveprime.com <mailto: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<crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>
>         <mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>on behalf of Martin
>         Doerr<martin at ics.forth.gr> <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>
>         *Date:*Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 9:43 AM
>         *To:*crm-sig<Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> <mailto: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 <x-msg://34/#_E2_Temporal_Entity>Temporal Entity
>         Range: E52 <x-msg://34/#_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 <x-msg://34/#_E92_Spacetime_Volume>Spacetime Volume
>         Range:E52 <x-msg://34/#_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 <x-msg://34/#_E4_Period>Period
>         Range: E53 <x-msg://34/#_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 <x-msg://34/#_E92_Spacetime_Volume>Spacetime Volume
>         Range:E53 <x-msg://34/#_E53_Place>Place
>         Superproperty of:E18 <x-msg://34/#_E18_Physical_Thing>Physical
>         Thing.P156 <x-msg://34/#_P153_assigned_co-reference>occupies
>         (is occupied by):E53 <x-msg://34/#_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  <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>   
>
>       Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl  
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Crm-sig mailing list
>     Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>

-- 
------------------------------------
  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/20190312/9b0f3007/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list