temporally_projects_onto [080-004] vs. projects_onto [098-001]

[fabianneuhaus]

Section 3.9.2 contains the relations "temporally_projects_onto" and "spatially_projects_onto" in [080-004], [081-003]

Compare that with section 3.14 which contains "projects_onto" in [098-001] and [099-001]
The axioms seem to say more or less the same thing, just that in 3.9.2 more specific relations are used.

What's the point of having both? isn't one of these sections redundant?
By the way, section 3.9.2 seems to be out of place, since it is not about Occurrents in general, it fits better to 3.14

[phismith]

I agree with the proposal to remove this redundancy

[fabianneuhaus]

ok. given the comment #56 , it seems that you are in favor of using
occupies_temporal_region
instead of a generic "projects_onto".
Thus, I assume we discontinue the use "projects_onto" in favor of the two relations
occupies_temporal_region and
occupies_spatial_region

[fabianneuhaus]

A logical consequence of these changes is that the domain of
occupies_spatial_region
is now "Particular" (and not just IndependentContinuant), because if X is a spatiotemporal region, then exists a spatial region Y such that
(occupies_spatial_region X Y)

Thus, [041-002] needs to be changed

[phismith]

spatio-temporal regions project_onto

material entities (etc.) occupy spatial regions

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:30 PM, fabianneuhaus notifications@github.com
wrote:

ok. given the comment #56 #56
, it seems that you are in favor of using
occupies_temporal_region
instead of a generic "projects_onto".
Thus, I assume we discontinue the use "projects_onto" in favor of the two
relations
occupies_temporal_region and
occupies_spatial_region

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#55 (comment).

[fabianneuhaus]

Are you sure? Because when I asked you about the difference between
"temporally_projects_onto vs. occupies_temporal_region (#56)"
I agree with the proposal to remove this redundancy

Let me put the question differently: is there any logical difference between the relationships except for their domains? Because if not, it seems to be more economical to use the same relationship. (Otherwise we would use different parthood relationships for parthood between spatio-temporal regions and material entities.)

On 09.09.2014, at 15:32, phismith notifications@github.com wrote:

spatio-temporal regions project_onto

material entities (etc.) occupy spatial regions

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:30 PM, fabianneuhaus notifications@github.com
wrote:

ok. given the comment #56 #56
, it seems that you are in favor of using
occupies_temporal_region
instead of a generic "projects_onto".
Thus, I assume we discontinue the use "projects_onto" in favor of the two
relations
occupies_temporal_region and
occupies_spatial_region

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#55 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.