[Crm-sig] Space time volumes

Christian-Emil Smith Ore c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Thu Mar 21 21:51:10 EET 2019


Some additional comments:
First some  tentative answers to the three first questions and then a longer comment on the forth:


1)	which E2 is not an E4, even in a broad sense?
Condition states

2)	which E94 (relevant, and not just purely abstract) is not also an E4?

A physical object

3)	Does the scope note of E94 (E92 I assume?) allow the existence of some instances that are also E4, as implied by the subclass condition and described in Dan’s examples?

Bronze Age in Scandinavia

4)	What is the difference between P4/P7 and P160/P162? In the second pair I assume P162 is a typo and the correct pair is P160/P161.

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)

P7 took place at (witnessed)
Domain:		E4 Period
Range:		E53 Place
Quantification:	many to many, necessary (1,n:0,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)

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)


If we assume there are instances of E2 which have only a time component and no spatial component then the cardinality of P4 must be (1,1:0,1) and P160 must be (1,1:0,1) since this implies the existence of instances of  E52 Time-Span which are not  simultaneously a timespan for an instance of E2 and E92. As discussed earlier P4 and P160 should be considered equal from E4 and downwards.  But as long as E2 is a proper superclass of E4 we need P4. The question is if there exists an instance of E2 which is not an instance of E4.

P7 has the cardinality (1,n:0,n) and P161 (1,n:1,1).  The intention of P7 is to link a temporal entity (read E4 Period) to one or more places, cf the last part of the scopenote for P7 “Something happening at a given place can also be considered to happen at a larger place containing the first. For example, the assault on the Bastille July 14th 1789 took place in the area covered by Paris in 1789 but also in the area covered by France in 1789. “
P161 is the projection to the smallest and unique place a STV occupies during its lifetime.  There is only one such place. (It is unclear to me why this instance cannot be shared by to spacetime volumes existing in a row.) 

This necessity for a STV to have a unique spatial projection implies that for E4 and down, there will always be an instance of P53 that is the range of an instance of P7 and at the same time the range of an instance of P161, which is fine and which is the reason P7 is a shortcut (cf. the comment by Francesco: “If we keep Spacetime Volume – E92 in the model we should get rid of /P4 has time-span/ and /P7 took place/ at because they are redundant with /P160 has temporal projection/and /P161 has spatial projection/, or apply the logical mechanism proposed by Martin which is under discussion”)

Since E4 is a subclass of E92, there may in principle be many instances of P53 Place that are not the range of P7 (but only the range of E161). The question is analogues to the question above : Can we identify at least some instances of E92 that are not an instance of E4?

________________________________________
From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Athanasios Velios <a.velios at arts.ac.uk>
Sent: 21 March 2019 17:12
To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Space time volumes

A couple of comments from me:

>> 1) which E2 is not an E4, even in a broad sense?

I think the question here are whether "E3 Condition State" is the same
as "E4 Period" and if "P5 and P9 consists of" are similar transitive
properties. From a conservation point of view I was never comfortable
with "E3" and I would be happy to model condition as "E4 Period"
replacing "P44 has condition" with "P8 took place on or within". And
maybe having E3 as a subclass of E4.

>> 2) which E94 (relevant, and not just purely abstract) is not also an E4?

E92 STV also includes "E18 Physical Thing" but only for convenience as
the scope note of E18 mentions:

"This model combines two quite different kinds of substance: an instance
of E18 Physical Thing is matter while a spacetime volume is an
aggregation of points in spacetime. However, the real spatiotemporal
extent of an instance of E18 Physical Thing is regarded to be unique to
it, due to all its details and fuzziness; its identity and existence
depends uniquely on the identity of the instance of E18 Physical Thing.
Therefore this multiple inheritance is unambiguous and effective and
furthermore corresponds to the intuitions of natural language."

"E18 Physical Thing" is not "E92 STV" so the IsA hierarchy is wrong at
this point. So moving "E18 Physical Thing" higher and merging E2, E3,
E92 and E4 could be one way of looking at it (and waiting for Martin and
Steve to wake me up).

All the best,

Thanasis

>> 3) Does the scope note of E94 allow the existence of some instances
>> that are also E4, as implied by the subclass condition and described
>> in Dan’s examples?
>> 4) What is the difference between P4/P7 and P160/P162?
>> My answers are in the negative for all of the above, but I may be wrong.
>> I am not sure that E94 should end in the waste basket; perhaps it
>> should go in the recycle bin and be repurposed as an abstract concept
>> like Time-span, Place and Dimension, at the same time freeing E4 from
>> dependence from it: E4 would occupy some E94, not be it.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Franco
>>
>> Il giorno gio 21 mar 2019 alle 08:30 Francesco Beretta
>> <francesco.beretta at cnrs.fr <mailto:francesco.beretta at cnrs.fr>> ha scritto:
>>
>>     Dear Dan, Franco, all,
>>
>>
>>     in a nutshell:
>>
>>
>>     Period – E4
>>
>>     P4 has time-span E52 Time-Span
>>
>>     P7 took place at E53 Place
>>
>>
>>     Spacetime Volume – E92
>>
>>     P160 has temporal projection E52 Time-Span
>>
>>     P161 has spatial projection E53 Place
>>
>>
>>     Period – E4 (phenomenal) Pxx has projection in Spacetime Volume –
>>     E92 (‘region’)
>>
>>
>>     If we keep Spacetime Volume – E92 in the model we should get rid
>>     of /P4 has time-span/ and /P7 took place/ at because they are
>>     redundant with /P160 has temporal projection/and /P161 has spatial
>>     projection/, or apply the logical mechanism proposed by Martin
>>     which is under discussion.
>>
>>
>>     If we get rid of E92 (and properties) and clearly explain E4 is a
>>     spacetime volume /by definition/, with temporal and spatial
>>     projection (P4/P7), then the issue seems to be solved.
>>
>>
>>     E4 being a subclass of E92 is in my opinion (and other’s also as
>>     we know) inconsistent with the traditional modelling method, and
>>     also misleading.
>>
>>
>>     If E4 can be merged with E2 (E2 would always have a projection in
>>     space, at least virtually, be this my brain the ‘place’ for my
>>     belief), then E2 is a STV with projection in time and space.
>>
>>
>>     This synthesis may be too simple not to be simplistic and I miss
>>     some crucial point ?
>>
>>
>>     All the best
>>
>>     Francesco
>>
>>
>>
>>     Le 21.03.19 à 00:05, Franco Niccolucci a écrit :
>>>     (Dan, resist, the cavalry is arriving, do you hear the trumpets? )
>>>
>>>     Sorry, that’s not convincing.
>>>
>>>     E4 Period is a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume, so every E4 is
>>>     also an E92. There may theoretically be some E92 that are not E4,
>>>     i.e. abstract subsets of R4 (sorry my email app does not allow
>>>     superscrpits, R4 means the 4-dimensional space of real numbers x,
>>>     y, z, t)
>>>
>>>     So Dan’s “Byzantine period” is rightfully also a Spacetime
>>>     Volume, besides obviously being an E4 Period; same as it is an
>>>     E1, the mother of all concepts. If it does not fit with the E92
>>>     scope note, it is the latter that is misspelled and wrong, not
>>>     Dan. Scope notes cannot override isA.
>>>
>>>     Also, since the domain of P160 & 161 is E92, they can be applied
>>>     also to E4. Perhaps this makes P7 superfluous, but that’s another
>>>     story.
>>>
>>>     In sum there is nothing “wrong” in Dan’s usage of E92 and the
>>>     related properties.
>>>
>>>     I would also add that I find difficult to describe an E92 that is
>>>     not an E4, besides artificial examples.
>>>
>>>     (Dan, nasty Indians are running away in debacle, you are safe...)
>>>
>>>     Finally, let me express some nightly gut feeling.
>>>     I am not comfortable with the scope note of E2: “This class
>>>     comprises all phenomena, such as the instances of E4 Periods, E5
>>>     Events and states, which happen over a limited extent in time”.
>>>     If these phenomena are happening, they happen somewhere, do you
>>>     know anything happening nowhere? so I would feel better by adding
>>>     at the end of this sentence “in time AND SPACE”. Actually, all
>>>     the examples of E2 mentioned in its scope note happen somewhere:
>>>     the Bronze Age happened in a region (Europe, the Levant, etc. not
>>>     in America); the Lisbon earthquake happend in Lisbon; the
>>>     Peterhof Palace in ruins happened in Northern Russia. My gut
>>>     feeling is that the scope notes of E2 and perhaps E4 were written
>>>     before achieving the concept of E92, so they might be
>>>     inconsistent or superfluous nowadays. My moonlight feeeling is
>>>     that all temporal things are subclasses of E92; but this could be
>>>     the effect of sad Brussels loneliness, where I am now, so don’t
>>>     take it too seriously.
>>>
>>>     Best
>>>
>>>     Franco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Il giorno mer 20 mar 2019 alle 15:04 Dan Matei <Dan at cimec.ro
>>>     <mailto:Dan at cimec.ro>> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>         Thanks Christian-Emil and Martin.
>>>
>>>         I will use then E4 and P7 (regretfully :-)
>>>
>>>         My impression is that the combination E92, P160 & P161 is a
>>>         more elegant solution. But, rules are
>>>         rules...
>>>
>>>         Best,
>>>
>>>         EDan
>>>
>>>         E2 and -----Original Message-----
>>>         From: Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr
>>>         <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>>
>>>         Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:13:52 +0200
>>>
>>>         > As Christian-Emil also pointed out, this is a wrong use of E92.
>>>         >
>>>         > The scope note says: "This class comprises 4 dimensional
>>>         point sets
>>>         > (volumes) in physical spacetime....".
>>>         >
>>>         > Do you regard that what makes up the identity and substance
>>>         of the
>>>         > Byzantine Period is to be a set of points?
>>>         >
>>>         > best,
>>>         >
>>>         > Martin
>>>         >
>>>         > On 3/19/2019 10:27 AM, Dan Matei wrote:
>>>         > > Hi fiends,
>>>         > >
>>>         > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 19:20, Martin Doerr
>>>         <martin at ics.forth.gr <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
>>>         > >
>>>         > >> Nevertheless, we used the term informally in the CRM. We
>>>         could name E92 as "abstract".
>>>         > > For me, some E92 are not abstract. E.g. I instantiate
>>>         "Byzantine
>>>         > > Period" (it is somwhat difficult to place it in South
>>>         America :-) :
>>>         > >
>>>         > > <#ByzantinePeriod> <isA> <crm:E92_Spacetime_Volume>
>>>         > > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P160_has_temporal_projection>
>>>         <330-1700>
>>>         > > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P161_has_spatial_projection>
>>>         <#EsternEurope>
>>>         > > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P161_has_spatial_projection>
>>>         <#Levant>
>>>         > > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P161_has_spatial_projection>
>>>         <#NorthAfrica>
>>>         > >
>>>         > > Also:
>>>         > >
>>>         > > <#BronzeAge1> <isA> <crm:E92_Spacetime_Volume>
>>>         > > <#BronzeAge1> <crm:P2 has_type> <#BronzeAge-Concept>
>>>         > > <#BronzeAge1> <crm:P160_has_temporal_projection> <p?1>
>>>         > > <#BronzeAge1><crm:P161_has_spatial_projection>
>>>         <#JapaneseIslands>
>>>         > >
>>>         > > <#BronzeAge2> <isA> <crm:E92_Spacetime_Volume>
>>>         > > <#BronzeAge2> <crm:P2 has_type> <#BronzeAge-Concept>
>>>         > > <#BronzeAge2> <crm:P160_has_temporal_projection> <p?2>
>>>         > > <#BronzeAge2><crm:P161_has_spatial_projection> <#Scandinavia>
>>>         > >
>>>         > > Should I worry ?
>>>         > >
>>>         > > Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         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
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     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
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based upon them and you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where this email is unrelated to the business of University of the Arts London or of any of its group companies the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the relevant group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the email is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also applies: UAL Short Courses Limited is a company registered in England and Wales under company number 02361261. Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272 High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY

_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list