| Question asked
|
Inference rule (1) from '''6.1 One Step In … Inference rule (1) from '''6.1 One Step Inferences''' would seem to have some unintuitive, at least to me, consequences. For instance, it is easy to imagine extending Figure 2 (which depicts ''John'' controlling the process ''Bake'' which uses a number of ingredients and produces ''Cake'') by adding a ''Make Fork'' process controlled ''Factory Worker'', using ''Steel'' and ''Fork Mold'', and produces ''Fork''. Then, ''Susan'' might control an ''Eat Cake'' that uses ''Cake'' and ''Fork'', and produces ''No Cake'' (or perhaps, ''Empty Plate''). It seems that Inference Rule (1) would allow us to conclude that ''Eat Cake'' was triggered by ''Bake'', and that ''Eat Cake'' 'was triggered by ''Make Fork''. Recall '''Definition 7 (Process Triggered by Process)''' ''A connection of a process P<sub>2</sub> to a process P<sub>1</sub> by a "was triggered by" edge indicates that the start of process P<sub>1</sub> was required for P<sub>2</sub> to be able to complete.'' Are there any provisions for multiple possibilities? E.g., ''Eat Cake'' does not really depend on a particular instance of ''Make Fork'', just about any ''Make Fork'' would do. Could this formalism handle something like recognizing that a codex was written over ''at some time between 1237 and 1342'' without knowing by whom and exactly when? Could it be extended to handle such cases? Could it be extended to handle such cases?
|
