[Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between E2, E4, E52 and E92
martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Mar 12 22:55:04 EET 2019
I agree that this is a "non-intended" model, as Guarino describes it. He
also points out, that no ontology can exclude all unintended models.
However, I do not see actually why this kind of model would be
disallowed with a link. If I am not mistaken, anything that can be said
with the IsA can be said with the 1-1 link. Just add the links, isn't it?
Indeed, parts can have a smaller time of existence than the whole. This
is intended. To declare a whole which has no portion surviving from
beginning to end of the whole is also realistic. To declare a whole as
E22 which has no properties poses a question about its identity.
So, I regard the example as a bad application, not a shortcoming of the
schema, and a question of elaborating the identity conditions for
On 3/12/2019 4:27 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear Martin, all,
> I agree with your assessment into the four categories, and that the
> first three are met, and the last is more complicated.
> I also agree with the formalism for E4. It moves some of the
> complexity around, and doesn’t introduce inconsistency for the
> temporal side of things for subclasses of E2.
> However, I agree with George that this does not hold true for the
> other sub class of E92, being E18 Physical Thing. With this subclass
> assertion, we can partition physical things based on time and then
> make assertions about those partitions using all of the sub-classes of
> E18. For example, to say that the Nightwatch had a width of 17 feet
> between its production in 1642 and 1715 when it was trimmed to fit on
> a wall in the Amsterdam town hall, we could have an E22 for the
> painting throughout time, and use P10 to reference further E22s, each
> of which were clarified with P160 as to their temporal projection.
> These projections could then have different dimensions.
> <Nightwatch> a E22_Man-Made_Object ;
> P10i_contains <Large_Nightwatch> , <Small_Nightwatch> .
> <Large_Nightwatch> a E22_Man-Made_Object ;
> P160_has_temporal_projection [
> a E52_Time-Span ;
> P81a_begin_of_the_begin “1642-01-01”
> P82a_end_of_the_end “1715-12-31” ] ;
> P43_has_dimension [
> P2_as_type <width-type> ;
> P90_has_value 17 ;
> P91_has_unit <feet-unit> ]
> (and the same for Small_Nightwatch, starting 1715 with 14.3 feet as width)
> This seems antithetical to the intent of the model (as I understand
> it) where activities (such as Modification in this case) are kept
> separate from the entities that they affect.
> This particular pattern could be prevented by having E92 not be a sub
> class of E18, without affecting the P160 / P4 discussion. However, I
> note some issues with making only this split:
> ·It would still be valuable to have the STV of a physical thing, in
> order to calculate the intersection between the STV that a physical
> object projects with Periods (that are themselves STVs). So it would
> be valuable to introduce a relationship between E18 and E92,
> introducing pattern inconsistency.
> ·While Period and Event seem to share the identity conditions with
> STV, Activity and below start to seem less identical. I worry that I
> become the space-time volume of the sum of my activities… and then I
> am a STV again, even though we removed it from E18 for just this reason.
> ·The same issue for P160 / P4 would apply for P161 / P53 – the spatial
> projection of the object is its former or current location, as they
> have the same identity currently.
> So overall, I think my position is that for consistency of the model,
> E92 should not be a subclass of either E4 or E18, but instead related
> via a property.
> Hope that helps!
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,
Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig