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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Mar 14 21:53:56 EET 2019


Dear Christian-Emil,

On 3/14/2019 11:15 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>
> I will not continue the discussion of identifying an instance of  E18 
> Physical Thing with its spacetimevolume.
>
> The intention with my “explanations” was to see whether the current 
> model support an equality of P4 and P160 from E4 and downwards. In a 
> FOL description of CRM the cardinality constraints are not just 
> guidelines, they have strong implications on the model. For example:
>
> 1)      P160 (E92 <-> E52) has the cardinality constraint (1,1:1,1) 
>  and is a 1-1 mapping (isomorphism) between E92 and E52
>
> 2)      P4 (E2 <-> E52) has the cardinality constraint (1,1:1,1) and 
> is a mapping between E2 and  E52 where all instances of E52 is related 
> to one or more instances of E2.
>
> 1 & 2 say that all time-spans are a time-span both for an instance of 
> E92 and at least one instance of E2. There are no instance of E2, 
> which does not share a time-span with a STV. This, I believe, is not 
> the intention.
>

>
> If we change the cardinality of  P4 (E2 <-> E52)  from (1,1:1,n) to 
> (1,1:1,1) which is required if P2 and P160 should be equal when 
> lowered to E4 <-> E52, the result is even worse. Then E2 and P52 is in 
> a 1-1 correspondence.
>
>
> Therefore the cardinality of P4 and P160 should be (1,1: 0,1) allowing 
> instances of E52 to be a time-span for an instance of  E2 without 
> being a time-span for an instance of E52 and vice versa.
>
Yes!
>
>
>
> Still there is nothing in the formal FOL definition stating that P4 
> and P160 seen as properties between E4 and E52 are equal here Martin’s 
> additional FOL expression comes in:
>
> (P4(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P160(x,y) ∧ (P160(x,y) ∧E4(x)) ⊃ P4(x,y)
>
> This expression states that P4 and P160 is equivalent when the domain 
> is restricted to P4.
>
Would that mean that each instance of E4 must have two time-spans, one 
for the P4 and one for the P160?

Another solution could be the infamous "punning": Declare P4 to have two 
domains, E2 and E92. Makes life easy, until we know the "true" 
superclass of both. Isn't it? That is actually what we mean but do not 
dare to say;-).


Martin

> This is the only such restriction in CRM. The question is where to put 
> this FOL expression. One could perhaps introduce multiple inheritance 
> for properties and then introduce a subproperty of P4 and P160?
>

> In any case, the 326 issue requires that the cardinalities are changed 
> and that the scopenote of P4 is changed to
>
> “This property describes the temporal confinement of an instance of an 
> E2 Temporal Entity. The related E52 Time-Span is understood as the 
> real Time-Span during which the phenomena were active, which make up 
> the temporal entity instance. It does not convey any other meaning 
> than a positioning on the “time-line” of chronology. The Time-Span in 
> turn is approximated by a set of dates (E61 Time Primitive). 
> Time-Spans may have completely unknown dates but other descriptions by 
> which we can infer knowledge.”
>
> Christian-Emil
>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> 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/20190314/98d3e2cd/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list