On 02/03/2011 11:28 AM, Yu Lin wrote:
>> Is Cct
>>
>> 1. C(c)@t ?
>> 2. C@t(c) ?
>> 3. C(c@t) ?
> I think it is 1. C(c)@t (01)
On what grounds? (02)
I would actually think it is C@t(c) (which is 2. C(c,t) in the
traditional AI/KR notation Pat mentioned), because of the definition (03)
c instance_of C at t - a primitive relation between a continuant
instance and a class which it instantiates at a specific time [1] (04)
which talks about *instantiating at time* (hence it seems to be the
relation that is time-qualified) rather than the sentence being true at
a time (hence it seems not to be the sentence that is time-qualified, as
you suggest). The cited paper does not use the R(...) notation,
however, so it's not immediately obvious where those author would put
the time variable. (05)
vQ (06)
[1] http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46 (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|