Issue 309: Temporal Primitives

Posted by Manos Papadakis and Martin Doerr on 15/5/2015

Please find a revised docx version of temporal relations

posted by Christian Emil on 30/7/2016

Dear all,

I have gone through the paper and also the model as such. M main conclusion is that we sould not just add the end/start point properties as properties between E2 Temporal Entity and that I do not agree with the defintions of the fuzzy operators. I am in the process of finalizing a longer comment on this.

Summary
1)
Thus there is no need for using a common instance of E52 Time-Span to express simultaneousness. So the cardinality of P4 can be restricted to (1,1:1,1).  This will make the model more consistent and P4/P160 will have the function to project a temporal entity/spacetime volume to its temporal component

2)  E52 Time-Span is the pendant to E53 Place. All reasoning about extention in time should be between E52 Time-Span and not between E2 Period. The new properties should be between E52 Time-Span

3) The new properties:
I am not convince that we need the endpoint in
P ΧΧΧ ends within (includes the end of)

Fuzzyness should be defined on the level of time primitives. It is more implementation than ontology. I also suggest we use the method Jon Holmen and I described in the CAA 2009 paper, page 5 left column (attached). We used the already existing properties

P81 ongoing throughout: E61 Time Primitive
P82 at some time within: E61 Time Primitive

which can be seen as a definition of fuzziness of  time spans.

4) There is also an isue about dependencies between

E92 Spacetime volume P161 has spatial projection E53 Place
P4 Period P7 took place at (witnessed): E53 Place

since E92 defines a necessary instance of E53 Place for every spacetime volume and also a neseccary and unique spacetime volume for every instance of E53 Place.

posted by Martin on 31/7/2016

On 30/7/2016 10:41 πμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have gone through the paper and also the model as such. M main conclusion is that we sould not just add the end/start point properties as properties between E2 Temporal Entity and that I do not agree with the defintions of the fuzzy operators. I am in the process of finalizing a longer comment on this.
>
> Summary
> 1)
> Thus there is no need for using a common instance of E52 Time-Span to express simultaneousness. So the cardinality of P4 can be restricted to (1,1:1,1).  This will make the model more consistent and P4/P160 will have the function to project a temporal entity/spacetime volume to its temporal component
This makes very much sense to me. The question is, if we can get rid of the intermediate TimeSpan instance.
>
> 2)  E52 Time-Span is the pendant to E53 Place. All reasoning about extention in time should be between E52 Time-Span and not between E2 Period. The new properties should be between E52 Time-Span
>
> 3) The new properties:
> I am not convince that we need the endpoint in
> P ΧΧΧ ends within (includes the end of)
>
> Fuzzyness should be defined on the level of time primitives. It is more implementation than ontology. I also suggest we use the method Jon Holmen and I described in the CAA 2009 paper, page 5 left column (attached). We used the already existing properties
>
> P81 ongoing throughout: E61 Time Primitive
> P82 at some time within: E61 Time Primitive
>
> which can be seen as a definition of fuzziness of  time spans.
I agree with the latter, but the question is, if we can imply from realtions in the phenomenal range
temporal topological terms.

How do you solve:

PXX2 : "Superproperty of:              E7 Activity. P134 continued by
(was continued by[L1] ): E7 Activity"

posted by Martin on 31/7/2016

Dear Christian-Emil,
we will discuss your comments in the meeting.

On 31/7/2016 11:59 πμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please find attached a text on the time primitives. The 5 + 1 new properties for time primitives are fine. As I mentioned yesterday there are two issues: Should the domain and range be E52 Timespan?
Obviously we run into a severe contradiction here between STVs, Timespans, Temporal Entities and Things.
We could make all STVs IsA Time-Span, and E2 IsA Time-Span, if we regard that relativitistic ambiguities of
time reference are irrelevant, and that E52 Time-Span is phenomenal. If we regard the Time Primitive as a
"Declarative Time-Span", then E52 is consistently approximated by the latter. A declarative Time-Span would,
projected on the physical time, still inherit he fuzziness of the date zero reference point, which is updated in regular intervals as time measurement precision increases.

Are there instances of E2 which are indeed without space? Or are we confusing plans with reality?
Now, that we associate a physical thing with an STV, its condition state would again be confined in space.
What about geopolitical units? What about the formation of a "will" to do something? Could we consistently associate with a notion of space?
> Fuzziness is an implementation issue.
I'f argue that fuzziness has two aspects: The deduction/observation point of view, with which I fully agree as you pose it, in which time observation is prior, and the substantial point of view, in which knowledge of processes without time information is prior. Are you sure your proposal covers the latter?
> 
>
> The conclusion in the attached document is:
>
> In the paper from CAA2009 (Holmen & Ore) we argue for possibly overlapping fuzzy boundaries from a deduction point of view. The Allan based algebra is unchanged. If we restrict the relations to non-overlapping fuzzy boundaries, the implementation will still be a model for the Allan-algebra.
>
> The new time primitives may be the basis for an algebra on time intervals. For example, it is possible to express the Allan operators as pairs of the new primitive time operators. Thus a model satisfying the new operators will also be a model for the Allan-algebra. I have not checked in detail, but I assume that we may implement the new primitive with or without possibly overlapping fuzzy borders or without fuzziness altogether and all the implmentations will be models for the algebra. Therefore my view is to leave the fuzziness to the implementation of E61 Time Primitive. I also suggest letting the domain and range of the new time primitives properties to be E52 Time-Span.
The point is that the time primitives can be formulated regarding fuzziness as a generalization of non-fuzziness without affecting the logic and the algebra. This is what we have shown with Manos Papangelis, if we are correct. It further extends into the 4D space without any change. Please contradict!

In 29/11/2016 Lida sent the HW assigned to her about the sub and super properties of proposed time primitives. The new revised text is here.

Heraklion 29/11/2016

posted by George  on 26/11/2016

Dear all,

Have you had further thoughts about the particular proposal to make E52 a Superclass of STV and E2?

My general reflection on the issue would be

1) This would surely add an element of simplification to the CRM model in that you would be able to reach time reasoning properties quite easily without creating a complicated path

2) Methodologically in terms of good practice I wonder if it would undermine the event oriented approach of CRM in the sense that you could begin to approximate the STVs of things directly… people will start happily putting dates on objects again ignoring their participation in events

I know there are other deeper technical modelling issues to consider in this question, but in order to open a discussion I start there.

Posted by Lida 19/12/2016

The labels of the new temporal relation primitives currently are:

1.P173 starts before or at the end of

2.P174 starts before the end of

3.P175 starts before or with

4.P176 starts before

5.P182 ends before or at the start of

6.P183 ends before

7.P184 ends with or after       

8.P185 ends after         

I think it is better to maintain a uniform format so I would like to suggest the following labels:

1.      P173 starts before or with the end of (ends with or after the start of)

2.P174 starts before the end of (ends after the start of)

3.      P175 starts before or with the start of (starts with or after the start of)

4.      P176 starts before the start of (starts after the start of)

5.      P182 ends before or with the start of (starts with or after the end of)

6.      P183 ends before the start of (starts after the end of)

7.      P184 ends before or with the end of (ends with or after the end of)       

8.      P185 ends before the end of (ends after the end of)

posted by Lida on 17/1/2017

The new updated version of temporal primitives is here

Posted by Gerald on 17/3/2017

In the 38th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 31st FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig reviewed

(a) the labels of the temporal properties and decided the following new labels:

•  to be removed from the list of spatiotemporal relationships the P166 was a presence of (had presence)  and the  P167 was at(was place of) since they are not primary topological relationships
•  to accept the groupings proposed by Gerald
•  to assign to Gerald to write an introduction to these. 
•  to set an open question remains if these properties are  true super properties to the classes within a model like OGC.

Finally the sig motivated by the open question decided that it is needed  a guideline to be written  about the case of  someone using an extension   would like to reduce to core CRM model. The sig assigned to CEO to write this guideline and  assigned to CEO and Gerald to make the appropriate adjustments  for all CRM extensions. In addition the sig decided to open a new issue for these guidelines.

Heraklion, April 2017

In the 39th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 32nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the captions proposed by Lida has been accepted. The HW about the guidelines will resolved in issue 336. The examples are still missing.

Heraklion, October 2017