Update Projectthree.md

[dmcnulty27]

No description provided.

[JaronJCheung]

Dear Delaney,

Thank you for inviting me to review your Project #3! Below are my thoughts and comments. Please keep what is helpful and discard what isn't.

Q1 & Q2: General comment--I think it would be good to share the definition listed for each object property as it will help your overall argument.

For example for Q1 (a), I looked up the definition of located in and I am not sure that it qualifies as reflexive as reflexivity is the relation where an object relates to itself. Its definition states: "a relation between two independent continuants, the target and the location, in which the target is entirely within the location." It seems to me that the definition defines a relationship between two entities, a target and location, and not a relationship to an entities own self. (I could be wrong though!) I recommend overlaps as a solid object property that should have reflexive listed.

Q1 (c): I like the argument for reciprocal of for symmetric. I am not certain about the object property itself, but I think it works!

Also, it seems that some of the examples for Q1-Q2 were briefly answered. I am guessing that you will come back to some of these to fill them out further.

Q3 (d): The group consensus for this one was to describe Goofus and Gallant as not being spouses of each other, but to keep it an open interpretation as to who they are married to (it is not clear with the description that Beverley gives us). The Google doc has a good model for this one!

Q4: Looks good!

Q5, Q8: In general, your answers look solid! I would double check with the Google doc if there were any updates for these.

Q6 & Q7: It might be a good idea to place an empty line between each answer so that it is easier for the reader to read your answers (hit enter twice after every sentence to ensure that there is an empty line).

Q6 (h): I think you are missing your answer for (h) lake.

Q9 & Q10: Look good!

Overall, nice work, Delaney! Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for inviting me to be a part of the review process for Project 3.

Best,
Jaron

[dmcnulty27]

Dear Delaney,

Thank you for inviting me to review your Project #3! Below are my thoughts and comments. Please keep what is helpful and discard what isn't.

Q1 & Q2: General comment--I think it would be good to share the definition listed for each object property as it will help your overall argument.

For example for Q1 (a), I looked up the definition of located in and I am not sure that it qualifies as reflexive as reflexivity is the relation where an object relates to itself. Its definition states: "a relation between two independent continuants, the target and the location, in which the target is entirely within the location." It seems to me that the definition defines a relationship between two entities, a target and location, and not a relationship to an entities own self. (I could be wrong though!) I recommend overlaps as a solid object property that should have reflexive listed.

Q1 (c): I like the argument for reciprocal of for symmetric. I am not certain about the object property itself, but I think it works!

Also, it seems that some of the examples for Q1-Q2 were briefly answered. I am guessing that you will come back to some of these to fill them out further.

Q3 (d): The group consensus for this one was to describe Goofus and Gallant as not being spouses of each other, but to keep it an open interpretation as to who they are married to (it is not clear with the description that Beverley gives us). The Google doc has a good model for this one!

Q4: Looks good!

Q5, Q8: In general, your answers look solid! I would double check with the Google doc if there were any updates for these.

Q6 & Q7: It might be a good idea to place an empty line between each answer so that it is easier for the reader to read your answers (hit enter twice after every sentence to ensure that there is an empty line).

Q6 (h): I think you are missing your answer for (h) lake.

Q9 & Q10: Look good!

Overall, nice work, Delaney! Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for inviting me to be a part of the review process for Project 3.

Best, Jaron

Thank you, Jaron for your insights! I always appreciate your set of detailed eyes on these matters!

[Finn1928]

Hi!

For 1(b), I'm not sure if Occurs_in would be transitive. One issue is that this relation is between a process and a place. So, you could say the robbery occurs in a building, but I don't think you could say the building occurs in a jurisdiction. I went with Causally_influences.

For 3(a) I would choose to include either the statement about Sally having at least one arm on Tuesday preceding having no arms on Wednesday or the statement about it preceding having at most one arms on Wednesday, and since I can't find a good reading where the sentence is merely saying she has no more than 1 arm that day, I'd keep the former.

For 3(d), I say:
Goofus is an instance_of object
Gallant is an instance_of object
Marriage is an instance_of occurent
“Three years span 1” is an instance_of one-dimensional temporal region.
t1 is an instance_of zero-dimensional temporal region
If t1 is part_of the one-dimensional temporal region “three years span 1”, then Goofus participates in marriage at t1 and Galland participates in marriage at t1.

Besides that, this looks good to me!