[Crm-sig] Space time volumes

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Mon Mar 18 19:15:33 EET 2019

Dear Robert,

Yes, this is up to the point. An example for E93 would be nice: 
typically, some reported situations, such as a museum object having been 
in display case xxx at least for this time-span, etc.

Another important case are the declarative STVs (CRMgeo) we need in 
great number for approximating "places", such as "Rome (city)" or 
"Poland(state)" in gazetteers, typically by outer bounds. (Franco 
Niccolucci and Sorin Hermon propose smaller STV boxes filling up "places").

There are enough high-level classes that need not normally be 
instantiated, but axiomatizing them as "abstract classes", as semantic 
network models in the 1980'ies proposed, appeared in the end to be 
misleading, because it fixes a level of specificity which does not 
exists for a general ontology as the CRM. In a way, the specificity of 
any class is arbitrary, because an instance has much more 
characteristics than any class we use. For instance, if we are 
interested in genotypes, the class "Person" becomes completely abstract. 
On the other side, in an Open World, any "abstract class" may have a 
direct instance, because the respective subclass has not been formulated 
in this ontology.

Nevertheless, we used the term informally in the CRM. We could name E92 
as "abstract".



On 3/18/2019 6:19 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Thank you Martin!
> If I can try to summarize my understanding, …
> A physical object isA space time volume that has a temporal projection 
> that is equal to the time span between its beginning of existence and 
> its end of existence.
> A period isA space time volume that has a temporal projection that is 
> equal to the timespan of the temporal entity (and hence the FOL 
> equivalency)
> An arbitrary temporal slice of a STV (be it physical or temporal) that 
> does not need to obey these restrictions is a E93 Presence
> Space Time Volumes themselves seem never to need to be instantiated, 
> instead one would use a subclass, as above.
> In the 6.2.4 documentation, the Examples for E92 do not give sub-classes.
> The STV of the Event of Caesar’s murder seems like either an E7 
> Activity (the murdering)
> The STV of the carbon 14 dating also seems like an E7 Activity (or 
> attribute assignment, depending on modeling?)
> The HMS victory from construction through to current location seems 
> like a E22 Man-Made Object
> The Danube river flood seems like an E5 Event
> Having examples for E93 Presence would be valuable.
> Rob
> *From: *Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
> *Date: *Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 12:40 PM
> *To: *Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu>, "crm-sig at ics.forth.gr" 
> <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 326 Resolving inconsistencies between 
> E2, E4, E52 and E92
> Dear Robert,
> On 3/14/2019 7:23 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>     Good point!  I agree that the necessary condition of P98 means
>     that the Person-STV is impossible, as that temporal projection was
>     not, itself, born.  Thus all STVs that are also Persons, must at
>     least include the temporal projection of the birth of the Person.
> Yes, or, the birth projection overlaps with the person's STV, it 
> initiates it. The birth begins before, and ends after. The STV's 
> beginning falls within the birth.
>     So … it doesn’t work for Person p10i Person, but it could be
>     reduced to a higher level class that doesn’t have such an identity
>     condition. For example, for some time I had a phase in which I was
>     183 centimeters tall:
>     Person p10i [
>     a E18_Physical_Object ;
>     P43_has_dimension [
>     a E54_Dimension
>     P90_has_value 183 ;
>     P91_has_unit <centimeters> ]
>     P160_has_temporal_projection [
>     a E52_Time-Span ;
>     ]
> Well, we have a beginning of existence for all E18 instances 
> corresponding to birth. Obviously, these are natural conditions to be 
> added, and important reasoning components to be developed for the CRM. 
> Nothing to do with the IsA versus link problem, isn't it?
> Regardless if we define a STV for it, we should know what makes things 
> to begin to exist and end to exist.
> So, I believe, for the respective phase, we still need to know how it 
> comes into being. If it is arbitrary, then we have the "Presence" 
> class already, which defines an arbitrary temporal section through the 
> STV. If not, we need some other class.
> Best,
> Martin
>     Rob
> -- 
> ------------------------------------
>   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
  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/20190318/9040529d/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list