In the 57th CIDOC CRM & 50th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, the SIG resolved to start an issue where to discuss enhancing the scope note of P89 falls within, to allow the instances of E53 Place that an instance of E4 Period P7 took place at, to fall within its spatial projection.
The issue stems from 643, and the discussion of the inferences that hold btw P7 and P161 --see the relevant HW by CEO and ensuing discussion.
The inference that one can draw from P7 took place at can be summed as follows:
IF it has been documented that an instance of E4(x) Period took place at an instance of E53(y) Place (i.e: E4(x).P7:E53(y)),
THEN (based on the spatial projection of E4(x) to an E53(z) Place –P161(z,x)) one can deduce that the instance of E53(z) Place P89 falls within the instance of E53 (y) (i.e., E53(z).P189(z,y):E53(y).
This calls for enhancing the scope note of P89 falls within, and this is the new issue where to do so.
HW: CEO, MD
Marseille, October 2023
Post by Martin Doerr (1 Feb 2024)
Dear all,
I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:
P89 falls within (contains)
Domain: E53 Place
Range: E53 Place
Quantification: many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)
Scope note: This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.
It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.
However, this property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 took place at (witnessed), from E4 Period through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both places are defined in the same geometric system.
This property is transitive and reflexive.
Examples:
The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) falls within the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)
In first-order logic:
P89(x,y) ⇒ E53(x)
P89(x,y) ⇒ E53(y)
[P89(x,y) ∧ P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)
P89(x,x)
Post by Stephen Stead (2 Feb 2024)
The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the statement “It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.”, which it is not.
I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-
This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 took place at (witnessed), from E4 Period through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both places are defined in the same geometric system.
Post by Martin Doerr (2 Feb 2024)
Accepted!
But, it seems it should be:
This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly within the extent of another instance of E53 Place, where both places are defined in the same geometric system, i.e. they are at rest to each other. It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.
This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 took place at (witnessed), from E4 Period through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place.
This property is transitive and reflexive.
in FOL:
P89(x,y) ⇒ (∃u) [ E18(u) ⋀ P157(x,u) ⋀ P157(y,u) ]
Then we can simplify the FOL of P7, and add the above FOL to P121,122,189
Best,
Martin
Post by Martin Doerr (2 Feb 2024)
Dear All,
We just observed that the FOL statements of P89 should also contain the formulation that both places need to be at rest to each other (i.e., fall into the same geometric system). This needs to be checked for all place to place relations.
Post by Martin Doerr (2 Feb 2024)
Dear All,
Alternatively, we can assume that both places are not completely at rest to each other, but that the geometric relation holds for all times, for example, a boat swimming in a lake will be for all times a place for people in it, which falls within the lake boundaries.
In that case, both places must fulfill the same relation in their geometric reference systems at any time these places exist together. Existence of a place means that there exists at least one and the same physical thing it is always at rest to. At a particular instance in time, all extents in different geometric reference systems can be mapped (projected) to each other, with the precision the origin of the systems is known. This mapping would be the base for comparing two places moving relative to each other.
I remember we discussed that, but never spelled out.
Best,
Martin
Post by Thanasis Velios (4 Feb 32024)
In version 7.2.3 (if I have the correct file in front of me) we have already added the following:
"This property is a part of the fully developed path from E93 Presence through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within (contains) to E53 Place."
This is the path from E93 Presence instead of E4 Period (both being subclasses of E92 Spacetime Volume).
If it applies to both E4 and E93, should we push it a step up to E92 Spacetime Volume which actually owns P161 has spatial projection in the first place?
All the best,
Thanasis
Post by Martin Doerr (19 Feb 2024)
Dear Thanasi, Eleni,
It is not clear to me why this is a concern. Both full paths shortcut different properties, P7 and P167. So, both should be mentioned. Raising a property to E92 is a different issue, ins't it?
My concerns, to be discussed, are if the falls within requires necessarily that both places are at rest.
Best,
Martin
In the 58th CIDOC CRM & 51st FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, the SIG postponed reaching a decision concerning the reformulation of the scope note for P89 falls within. The HW originally submitted by MD (see post on 1 February 2024) allowed for the instances of E53 Place that an instance of E4 Period P7 took place at, to fall within its spatial projection. But since he submitted the HW, more aspects to the “falls within” relation have been brought to the SIG’s attention, and the HW needs to be streamlined a bit, before it’s ready to be put to a vote.
HW: MD & CEO to rework the definition and inferences
Paris, March 2024