Post by Martin Doerr (4 September 2024).
Dear All,
I propose the following modifications for P179 and P191, as attached, following issue 665.
Specificity of the "Monetary amount" for a transaction is much more relevant for querying, and unambiguous, than asking for all transactions or things having the same monetary nominal value. Indeed, I cannot grasp the sense of the latter.
Therefore I change the quantifier to one to one, necessary, and enhance the scope note.
Best,
Martin
Proposal by Martin Doerr & Christian-Emil to adjust the FOL statements for P191 had duration and P179 had sales price, to include inferences excluding the use of P43 and (P179|P191) respectively (personal communication: 19 August 2024)
P191 had duration (was duration of) - v7.3
In first-order logic:
- P191(x,y) ⇒ E52(x)
- P191(x,y) ⇒ E54(y)
Exclusion statements for CRMbase:
- P191(x,y) ⇒ ¬(∃z) [E54(z) ⋀ P43(x,z)]
- P191(x,y) ⇒ ¬(∃z) [E54(z) ⋀ P179(x,z)]
Exclusion statements for CRMsci to go under O12:
- P191(x,y) ⇒ ¬(∃z) [E54(z) ⋀ O12(x,z)]
P179 had sales price (was sales price of) -v7.3
In first-order logic:
- P179(x,y) ⇒ E96(x)
- P179(x,y) ⇒ E97(y)
Exclusion statements for CRMbase:
- P179(x,y) ⇒ ¬(∃z) [E54(z) ⋀ P43(x,z)]
- P179(x,y) ⇒ ¬(∃z) [E54(z) ⋀ P191(x,z)]
Exclusion statements for CRMsci to go under O12:
- P179(x,y) ⇒ ¬(∃z) [E54(z) ⋀ O12(x,z)]