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

Christian-Emil Smith Ore c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Mon Mar 18 08:44:54 EET 2019


​Dear all,

This is an old email sent 6 days ago and delayed due the size (> 70Kb).  An identical (but shorter email) was distributed 12 March.

Best,

Christian-Emil

________________________________
From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Christian-Emil Smith Ore <c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no>
Sent: 12 March 2019 15:24
To: Martin Doerr; steads at paveprime.com; 'George Bruseker'
Cc: 'crm-sig'
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between E2, E4, E52 and E92


​​Dear all,

The issue 326 is old. I made some slides (dated 31/3/2017) which can be found at

http://www.edd.uio.no/download/cidoc_crm/issue-326-overview-and-thoughts-HW.pptx


The exchange of emails has two topics:

1) E18 Physical Thing as a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume

​2) the properties P4 and P160


**********

1: In my opinion it is model theoretically correct that E18 Physical Thing​ as a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume. However, it may be confusing for persons not so interested in theory.  Therefor we could introduce a property Pxx E18 Physical Thing <->  E92 Spacetime Volume with the cardinality (1,1:0,1) describing the the (model theoretical) fact that  a part of  E18 Physical Thing is in a 1-1 correspondence with a subset of E92 Spacetime Volume​.


The model will still have the same explanatory power, and hopefully be more intuitive for the lay persons.


***********

2:

In the slides I give the following comment:



"The cardinality of P4 has time-span is (1,1:1,n), that is, two or more instances of E2 Temporal Entity can “share” an instance of E52 Time-span. This was introduced in an early stage to model simultaneity.

This way of modeling simultaneity is considered obsolete and the cardinality of P4 should be (1,1:1,1)-

E2 Temporal Entity and E52 Time-span in a one to one relation

E2 Temporal Entity and E92 Spacetime Volume  in a one to one relation. "



Please, note that  P4's cardinality states that every instance of P4 is connected to one and only one instance of E52 Time-span. Therefore, the number of instances of E52 Time-span will be equal or less than the number of instances of E2 Temporal Entity.



The number of instance of E92 Spacetime Volume and E2 Temporal Entity will always be equal due to the cardinality (1,1:1,1) of P160  has temporal projection.  E4 Period is a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume and has less than or equal number of instances. The cardinality of P160 when lowered to

P160: E4 Period <-> E52 Time-span

must have the more strict cardinality  (1,1:0,1), that is, it is an injection of E4 Period into E52 Time-span. There may exist instances of E52 Time-span which are not related to an instance of the subclass E4 Period

Correspondingly:

P4: E4 Period <-> E52 Time-span

must have the cardinality constraint (1,1:0,n).

The scope note of P160:

“This property describes the temporal projection of an instance of an E92 Spacetime Volume. The property P4 has time-span is the same as P160 has temporal projection if it is used to document an instance of E4 Period or any subclass of it.”

So the formulation discussed in the emails is already there.

The scope note of P4:

 “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). A temporal entity can have in reality only one Time-Span, but there may exist alternative opinions about it, which we would express by assigning multiple Time-Spans. Related temporal entities may share a Time-Span. Time-Spans may have completely unknown dates but other descriptions by which we can infer knowledge.”

The formulation “A temporal entity can have in reality only one Time-Span, but there may exist alternative opinions about it, which we would express by assigning multiple Time-Spans.” should be deleted. Such multiple assignment due to uncertainties or alternative opinions is the case for many properties in CRM.

In my opinion “Related temporal entities may share a Time-Span.” Should also be deleted and the cardinality of P4 (E2 Temporal Entity <-> E52 Time-span) made stricter to (1,1:1,1).


________________________________
From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
Sent: 12 March 2019 11:09
To: steads at paveprime.com; 'George Bruseker'
Cc: 'crm-sig'
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between E2, E4, E52 and E92

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><mailto: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><mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>
Cc: crm-sig <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr><mailto: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 Temporal Entity
Range:                E52 Time-Span
Quantification:    many to one, necessary, dependent (1,1:1,n)

P160  has temporal projection (is temporal projection of)
Domain: E92 Spacetime Volume
Range: 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:              E4 Period
Range:                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: E92 Spacetime Volume
Range: E53 Place
Superproperty of: E18 Physical Thing. P156 occupies (is occupied by): 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: 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<mailto: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/20190318/05182e01/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list