Issue 326: Resolving inconsistences between E2, E4, E52 and E92

Starting Date: 
2016-12-07
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 
In the 36th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 29th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig discussed the points that CEO brought into light through emails  about the inconsistencies of STV, Periods, Time spans. and proposed  to make E2 and E92 child of E52, this means that every physical thing gets an on going through out, as well as occurs within  for endurance though it makes more sense to say existing ongoing throughout (for P81). It also makes P4 and P161 redundant. In the light of the above the crm-sig proposed to think about the difference between perdurants and endurants.  MD argued  that for perdurants we look at substance of change, for endurance we look at substance of sameness, also getting rid of P4 is not backwards compatible, but we could build a transformation rule.
 
Heraklion, August 2016
Current Proposal: 

In the 37th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 30th   FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting,  the crm-sig made a list of problems/realizations needed to be discussed more and concluded that next steps should be:

a)       To find examples of  E2  that are not spacetime volumes (ie non spatial)

b)       To find examples of  declarative time spans and places

c)       To prepare a practice guide experience (decision from CRMgeo) where to use declarative place

Homework for the next meeting is assigned to GB to write a text about this situation and then this text should be reviewed by Wolfgang and CEO

Berlin, December 2016

Posted by Christian Emil on 30/3/2017

Dear all,
The attached ppt is made to clarify my own mind

It starts with the current situation as in CRM 6.2.2.

I then see what happens if the cardinality of P4 is changed from (1,1:1,n) to (1,1:1,1).

I argue that the cardinality of P161 has temporal projection should be changed from (1,1:,1,1) to (1,1,0:1) allowing for instances of  E2 Temporal Entities without a spatial component. An example is I2 Belief.

With this cardinality E2 Temporal Entities and E52 Time-span can be seen as a single class.

posted by Martin on 30/3/2017

Dear Christian-Emil,

Your diagrams are extremely helpful. Would be nice to have a tool that creates such graphs on the fly.

Your arguments are mathematical so far:
"If yes then E4 Period equals E2 Temporal Entity" ...means if we do not find another property actually making the distinction;-).

I'd suggest to add to the discussion the question of what is observable/phenomenal and what not.

Merging E2-E52 makes E2 a phenomenal/observable entity. I like that. But that does not mean, that P160 needs to exist as is. If E92 is actually prior to the phenomenal/declarative divide, we may question that the temporal projection of E92 is phenomenal. Rather, we should look at the approximations P82/83.

May be we misunderstand the ontological nature of the temporal projection.

Or we need a pure time-span without phenomenal interpretation on top of E2. 

Posted by Christian Emil on 30/3/2017

Dear Martin,
Thank you, but there is always some pedagogical aspects connected to how one organize diagrams. An automatic tool can be a helper

I am in this respect the matematician, you are the physisist. When we introduced the cardinalities/quantification and made the fol representation I, at least, got a tool to reason about the model qua model. We clearly see what the model is today.

As correctly stated: If we find another property making the distinction, then they are distict. However, today  we don't have this property.

A discussion will be good.

Should I distribute these diagrams to the list as well?

Posted on 31/3/2017

Dear Christian-Emil

On 30/3/2017 9:34 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> Dear Martin,
> Thank you, but there is always some pedagogical aspects connected to how one organize diagrams. An automatic tool can be a helper
>
> I am in this respect the matematician, you are the physisist. When we introduced the cardinalities/quantification and made the fol representation I, at least, got a tool to reason about the model qua model. We clearly see what the model is today.
I absolutely appreciate the mathematical reasoning, it is the sine qua non in this work. I just made the point, always to make clear the distinction of the kind of argument.
>
> As correctly stated: If we find another property making the distinction, then they are distict. However, today  we don't have this property.
Yes. My point is, logical deductions have always these aspects:

A) They confirm your experience. => Increase trust in your model => Use your model to simulate reality
B) They appear odd to your experience => reexamine your experience
                        => C) experience was wrong, model confirmed (e.g. the chaotic solutions of Volterra
                                        Equation describing that population growth against resource can result in
                                        population suicide, which was first not believed by mathematicians, then proven
                                        by mathematicians, then not believed by biologists, and then experimentally
                                        confirmed by biologists.)
                        => D) Axioms do not fit reality (missing parameter etc.)

I may have given the impression in the past that I do not give a high value to logic. This is absolutely not the case. I only like to stress that logical truths are relative to their premises , whereas empirical truths suffer from insufficient observation.

> A discussion will be good.
>
> Should I distribute these diagrams to the list as well?
Oh yes! 

Posted on 31/3/2017

Dear all,
I have little knowledge about (theoretical) physics. My impression is that the development of mathematical tools is necessary for the development of theoretical physics. It is perhaps unmodest to compare our model development with that, but it is easier to see (in)consistencies and consequences  with fol, models, sets and perhaps also category theory.

The relation between E2 and E4. As long as there is an isomorphism between the two, they can be considered to be equal. 

Posted by Martin on 31/3/2017

Dear Christian-Emil,

On 31/3/2017 8:39 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> Dear all,
> I have little knowledge about (theoretical) physics. My impression is that the development of mathematical tools is necessary for the development of theoretical physics. It is perhaps unmodest to compare our model development with that, but it is easier to see (in)consistencies and consequences  with fol, models, sets and perhaps also category theory.
I am confused why you repeat that. I have really not said or meant anything else:-) ("sine qua non" means absolutely mandatory).
>
> The relation between E2 and E4. As long as there is an isomorphism between the two, they can be considered to be equal.
Sure, as long as we are in a Closed World, the stated properties are the only properties, and then the isomorphism holds. Isn't it?
 

Posted by Christian Emil on 31/3/2017

Dear  all,
The pptx was made to clarify my own mind, and I hope it will not be confusing.

http://www.edd.uio.no/download/cidoc_crm/issue-326-overview-and-thoughts...


It starts with the current situation as in CRM 6.2.2.

I then see what happens if the cardinality of P4 is changed from (1,1:1,n) to (1,1:1,1).

I argue that the cardinality of P161 has temporal projection should be changed from (1,1:,1,1) to (1,1,0:1) allowing for instances of  E2 Temporal Entities without a spatial component. An example is I2 Belief.

With this cardinality E2 Temporal Entities and E52 Time-span may be seen as a single class.

Posted by Christian Emil on 31/3/2017

I see that it is more to this issue. I am used to think in closed world. I will think more about this.

In the 38th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 31st FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, CEO presented his graphs. Then Martin made the following  graph on the board

The crm- sig asked Gerald  to  complete the graphical representation showing the logical resolution, in order to be discussed in the next meeting

Heraklion, April 2017

Reference to Issues: