Re: question on constraint 47 (3) - wasAssociatedWith-ordering

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
I've now closed this issue.

--James

On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks James.
> 
> Looks good to me.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I have added a remark summarizing this discussion just after constraint 47.  I propose to close this issue since the remark should address it.  Please let me know by Monday if further discussion is needed.
> 
> --James
> 
> 
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> OK, we can revise the text.  ISSUE-615 created.
>> 
>> For the typing constraint, constraint 50 applies:
>> 
>>  wasEndedBy(end2; ag,_e2,_a2,_t2,_attrs2)  implies 'activity' in type(ag)
>> likewise,
>>  wasGeneratedBy(gen1; ag,_a1,_t1,_attrs1)  implies 'entity' in type(ag)
>> 
>> Luc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 01/16/2013 10:02 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>> Hi Luc,
>>> 
>>> I just figured that out as well. :-) 
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Two things
>>> - maybe this should be made clear in the text? by some comments in the rules.
>>> - I also wonder if there should be a typing constraint in the head of the rule to say that agent must be an agent or an entity for the cases to apply.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>> 
>>> Constraint 47 is looking at the ordering constraints between
>>> an activity a and an agent ag, considering
>>> - ag is an entity (cases 1 and 2)
>>> - ag is an activity (cases 3 and 4)
>>> 
>>> Case 3 says that the agent (an activity) must have ended after the start of
>>> the activity a, ensuring some overlap between the two.
>>> 
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 01/16/2013 09:44 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>> Can someone clarify the following in the spec (Constraint 47 - 3)
>>>> 
>>>> IF wasAssociatedWith(_assoc; a,ag,_pl,_attrs) and wasStartedBy(start1; a,_e1,_a1,_t1,_attrs1) and wasEndedBy(end2; ag,_e2,_a2,_t2,_attrs2) THEN start1 precedes end2.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From my reading, this is saying that the start of activity a, must happen after the end of activity, a2 if the the agent, ag, ended activity a2.
>>>> 
>>>> This doesn't make sense to me. An agent can  potentially end one activity and start another...
>>>> 
>>>> Can someone clarify this for me?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Paul
>>> 
>>>  -- 
>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Professor Luc Moreau
>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>> 
> 
> 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> 
> 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 19:01:56 UTC