Issue 434: Scope Note of E52 Time Span
Posted by Martin on 8/10/2019
This scope note needs revision in the bold parts, I think:
Subclass of: E1 CRM Entity
Scope note: This class comprises abstract temporal extents, in the sense of Galilean physics, having a beginning, an end and a duration.
Time Span has no other semantic connotations. Time-Spans are used to define the temporal extent of instances of E4 Period, E5 Event and any other phenomena valid for a certain time. [MD1] A Time-Span may be identified by....
Since our knowledge of history is imperfect, instances of E52 Time-Span can best be considered as approximations of the actual Time-Spans of temporal entities. The properties of E52 Time-Span are intended to allow these approximations to be expressed precisely. An extreme case of approximation, might, for example, define an instance of E52 Time-Span having unknown beginning, end and duration. Used as a common E52 Time-Span for two events, it would nevertheless define them as being simultaneous, even if nothing else was known[CSO2] .
Automatic processing and querying of instances of E52 Time-Span is facilitated if data can be parsed into an E61 Time Primitive.
§ From 12-17-1993 to 12-8-1996
§ 14h30 – 16h22 4th July 1945
§ 9.30 am 1.1.1999 to 2.00 pm 1.1.1999
§ duration of the Ming Dynasty (Chan, 2011)
In First Order Logic:
E52(x) ⊃ E1(x)
[MD1]Needs more text…
[CSO2]Should we keep this?
In the 45th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 38th FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig went on and reviewed MD's proposal for the scope note of E52. Some discussion points brought up by the sig members were:
- the clause: “An E52 Time-Span may be identified by one or more instances of E49 Time Appellation” should be deleted, in accordance with the decision to deprecate all specifications of E41 Appellation –moot point, it has been deleted in v.6.2.7.
- the phrasing “Time-Spans are used to define the temporal extent of instances of E4 Period, E5 Event and any other phenomena valid for a certain time” was considered misleading, as it seems to identify the time span with the period.
- The clause: “Used as a common E52 Time-Span for two events, it would nevertheless define them as being simultaneous, even if nothing else was known”, as a means to capture simultaneity of 2+ events was considered erroneous, since each event stretches over exactly one time span (if difference of opinion regarding the true temporal extent of an event/period is not considered) one doesn’t take into consideration they should ascribe one time-span per event/period
HW: MD & CEO have been assigned with rewriting the scope notes, removing the *is identified by* part (a) and making sure that they deploy a verb other than *define* (b). Sharing a time span does not pose a problem, hence should be left unaltered (c).
HW: SS is to proofread the scope note after MD and CEO have changed it.
Heraklion, October 2019
Sent by Martin to CEO & Steve on 28/1/2020
Here our home-work. Please take over
I have added 4 and P170, because these must be edited together. P4 contained junks about E52.
Steve, please review English...
Need an example for P170.
I believe some parliamentary sessions or so are explicitly declared as being opened and closed. They would have precise time-spans. All other examples are now in extensions, such as plans etc.