Changes between Version 4 and Version 5 of SigMmt/Templates/ParticipatorInActivity

Show
Ignore:
Timestamp:
01/17/11 07:59:36 (11 years ago)
Author:
mfedorov (IP: 93.186.61.242)
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • SigMmt/Templates/ParticipatorInActivity

    v4 v5  
    3131 
    3232?Question? Shouldn't the axiom look like: 
    33 ParticipatorInActivity (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) <->  
    34 Activity(x1) &  
    35 ClassOfActivity (x2) &  
    36 PossibleIndividual(x3) &  
    37 RoleAndDomain (x4) &  
    38 ClassOfIndividual(x5) & 
    39 ClassificationTemplate(x1,x2) & 
    40 exists u (ParticipationTriple(u, x3, x1) & 
    41   exists p ( 
    42     ClassOfParticipationTemplate(p, x2) & 
    43     SpecializationTemplate(p, x4) & 
    44     SpecializationTemplate(p, x5) & 
    45     ClassificationTemplate(x3,p) & 
    46     ClassificationTemplate(u,p) 
     33!ParticipatorInActivity (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) <->  
     34!Activity(x1) &  
     35!ClassOfActivity (x2) &  
     36!PossibleIndividual(x3) &  
     37!RoleAndDomain (x4) &  
     38!ClassOfIndividual(x5) & !ClassificationTemplate(x1,x2) & exists u (!ParticipationTriple(u, x3, x1) &   exists p ( 
     39    !ClassOfParticipationTemplate(p, x2) & 
     40    !SpecializationTemplate(p, x4) & 
     41    !SpecializationTemplate(p, x5) & 
     42    !ClassificationTemplate(x3,p) & 
     43    !ClassificationTemplate(u,p) 
    4744)) 
    4845I mean shouldn’t we specify explicitly classification relationships between the following pairs: x1 – x2; x3 – p; u – p? 
Home
About PCA
Reference Data Services (RDS)
RDS Operations Support
Meetings and Conferences
ISO 15926
Special Interest Groups
Technical Advisory Board
Norwegian Continental Shelf Std
Projects
Search