In the 57th CIDOC CRM & 50th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, upon discussing issue 550, the SIG resolved to start a new issue where to explore the connection among I11 Situation, S23 Position Determination, and E3 Condition State.
Motivation:
The difference btw E3 Condition State and I11 Situation is not particularly clear. And in that sense, it’s not 100% clear what the added value of the timespan of an I11 Situation offers.
The SIG should explore and carefully define the relation between E3 Condition State and I11 Situation.
- In principle, Jxxx1 held at least for seems to work well with E3 Condition state, which means that there could be implications for the hierarchical relations of I11 and E3.
Determine the constraints put on an instance of I4 Proposition Set (and/or I11 Situation) in the sense of defining the properties that can form part of the I4 instance. This should apply to subclasses of I4 (so if E3 is considered IsA I4, it would apply to it too).
In determining the relation between I11 Situation and E3 Condition State, we must keep in mind that while it is the case that E3 IsA E2 Temporal Entity, it is not the case that I11 IsA E2 (I11 can be placed in the future).
- The relation of the modelling constructs around I11 Situation need to take into consideration S23 Position Determination and O31 has validity time-span as well.
HW: MD, WS to work on that.
Marseille, October 2023
In the 61st joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 & 54th FRBR/LRMoo SIG, WS explained how the examples of S23 Position Determination reflect in the new definition of S23 Position Determination (in CRMsci V3.0), and the ensuing “demotion” of the example of Halpern’s calculation of the position of the Titanic at the moment of the collision to S6 Data Evaluation –namely the clause that “The determined positions is given as an E94 Space Primitive corresponding to a declarative place. Together with the measured time-span covering the time-critical observations, it forms a spacetime volume, which should normally overlap with the spatiotemporal extent of the thing or phenomenon of interest”.
Regarding the main topic of the issue: the similarity between I11 Situation and S23 Position Determination (and E3 Condition State) is implied.
- S23 Position Determination. O31 has validity time-span (is validity time-span for): E52 Timespan
- I11 Situation. J24 held at least for (is at least validity of): E52 Time-Span
Despite the fact that I11 is defined as a subclass of I4 Proposition Set (and by extension of E89 Propositional Object) whereas S23 and E3 are subclasses of E2 Temporal Entity, I11 forms a particular kind of proposition set, in that its temporal context can be defined (as is evident from its temporal property J24 held at least for (is at least validity of)). Furthermore, O31 can be defined as a shortcut, its fully developed path going through:
- S23 Position Determination. O36 expressed the observed as (was observed by): S28 Observable Situation. J24 held at least for (is at least validity of): E52 Time-Span
The relation between S23 and I11 can be captured by the additional FOL statement (which should also reflect in the scope note):
- S23(x) ⇒∃(yz)[E52(y) ∧ S15(z) ∧ O31(x,y) ∧ O32(x,y)]
Decision:
The SIG considers the FOL addition an editorial decision of the CRMsci maintainers, and agrees to WS’s proposal of adding a clause to reflect that in the scope note.
HW-WS: The graphics for Mount Everest will be used for a new example of S23 Position Determination
Heraklion, October 2025