jakebeal
commented
1 year ago In the interval algebra which these relations is drawn from, overlaps is NOT symmetric: A overlaps B implies that B does not overlap A.
This does, in fact, mean that "overlap" has a stronger set of conditions in the context of intervals than it does topologically (where it is symmetric), but both of those meanings are long established mathematical vocabulary, and I don't think that we should modify them. There is also clear value in being able to distinguish between a 5' overlap and a 3' overlap (which this allows).
There is already a note about this in Table 10, but please feel free to set up a PR that proposes an enhanced explanation.
The overlaps definition is described by using the start and end of the subject. Would it not also be valid to describe the same relationship using the object's start and end positions?
For example, if the subject has a range of 9-12 and the object has a range of 7-10, then according to the current definition, the subject does not overlap with the object.
"The start of the location for subject is before the start of the location for object and the end of the location for subject is before the end of the location for object."