Issue 477: scope note of P101 and proper definition of terms General and Specific

Posted by Christian Emil on 26/09/2020

I had a look into the issue 447 and compiled a memo in the google drive. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ECDet0Jis9IUPDDNK-7aHb-OjLqVolHJQTnhACG0Ko8/edit#​

Here is an excerpt:

P186 produced thing of product type (is produced by): P186(x,y) ⊃ (∃z)[E24(z) ∧ P108(x,z) ∧  P2(z,y)]

The FOL states that if an instance of E12 Production produced  instances of a given (production)type then there existed at least one instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing which had that type.  The past tense in the label and the present tense in the scope note is a little confusing. The FOL implies that P186 states a completed fact and not an intention. 

P101 had as general use (was use of): P101(x,y) ⊃ (∃z)[E7(z) ∧ P16(z,x) ∧  P2(z,y)]

This corresponds to P186. Scope note: “This property associates an instance of E70 Thing with an instance of E55 Type describing its general usage.” The FOL requires that there must be at least one instance of E7 Activity of the given type  in which the instance of was used.  Therefore an unused object, say a baseball bat (as in the scope note) can never be connected to the type “had a general use for sport”. As for P125 , an instance of P101 documents observed completed facts and not intended general use. An unused coin in a numismatic collection (which is not infrequent)  cannot be linked to a “mean of payment” type via P101 or the unused baseball bat found in an attic cannot be connected to a “used in sport” type via P101.

Is this the intention?

Posted by Christian Emil  on 1/10/2020

The second case was a question?

Purpose: It is unclear for me who defines the general  purpose of an artifact? The producer or the keeper? In the first case it may have somthing to do with production type?