Closed tmprd closed 1 year ago
Here's what happens when we try to change the ontology to fit the natural language definition of Influence as a "capacity". Removing InstantaneousEvent as a superclass of Generation, Invalidation, Start, End, & Usage is necessary to make this a continuant (though not an option for the scope of this project). However, re-classifying Influence as a continuant still results in several contradictions with the example data.
Meanwhile, treating Influence as a process results in 1 contradiction, posted above. I'm inclined to think this example :digestedProteinSample1
, contrary to what's implied, is not both an Entity (continuant) and an EntityInfluence (occurrent). Actually, a digested protein sample is neither a capacity nor a process.
Therefore, I think our best chance is to ignore this example and interpret all influences as processes.
What justifies ignoring this example? First, there's only one of these. Second, there is a precedent: another PROVO example contradicts PROVO itself (because it asserts something is an Entity, while implying its an Activity, while asserting Entity and Activity are disjoint).
Finally, what explains the intuition that Influence is a capacity is that the authors were thinking of Influence as necessarily involving a relation to some Agent. This is better explained by agents being participants in influences as processes.
The definition of Influence suggests it's some kind of dependent continuant.
However, some subclasses of
Influence
, such asGeneration
, are also subclasses ofInstantaneousEvent
, which in turn we have classified as aprocess boundary
(anOccurrent
).Other subclasses of
Influence
, such asCommunication
andDerivation
, could be interpreted as happening over time, so we've tried classified those as aprocess
.process
andprocess boundary
are disjoint, that meansInfluence
would need to be a disjoint union of these (either but not both).However, one example asserts that an instance of
prov:Entity
, which we've classified as acontinuant
, is implied to also be an instance ofEntityInfluence
, in virtue of being the domain of a prov:entity relation (not to be confused with the prov:Entity class). Again, suggesting that influences are continuants. Here is the example:Conclusion: There are many confusing aspects of these classifications, but fundamentally to make the alignment consistent with PROVO's example data, we need to split up some subclasses of
Influence
as eithercontinuant
oroccurrent
but not both. CouldInfluence
be disjoint union between these (maybe, e.g.process boundary
anddisposition
)? Any problems with that?