Dear Vladimir,
Thank you very much for your comment.
Actually the domain - range restriction of R10 to F3, F5 is the kind of
intension change
that justifies the subproperty. If you may interpret the label "has type" and
"example" as synonymous, has no relevance. Labels are only mnemonics. Note, that
the CRM is not a dictionary that would explain the meaning of English words or
expressions.
Domain and Range of properties are part of their intension. Beyond that, only
the
scope note matters.
Actually the link P137 should be declared as subproperty of P2. This needs
inverting P137. This is an issue for the next meeting.
The notion of "exemplifying" in P137 is that of selecting ONE instance to be
a particularly good representative. This is not the sense of R10, but similar
to the "representative assignment" in FRBRoo, which we put now in an Annex of
the document.
Best,
Martin
Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
Dear All,
In fact, each property (R10, P137, etc.)
could be treated as a couple : R10F(orward) and R10B(ackward) or P137F and P137B.
Maybe, the issue is in the order of property names.
"is example of #R10F# (has example) #R10B#" and
"is exemplified by #P137F# (exemplifies) #P137B#" .
and property hierarchy:
R10F Subproperty of P137B
R10B Subproperty of P137F
looks normal.
-----
Or, we could imagine inverse order:
"is example of #R10F# (has example) #R10B#" and
"is exemplified by #P137B# (exemplifies) #P137F#" .
and correspond property hierarchy.
As for the first part of the letter,
We could apply a simple test:
To be _an example of_ someting is to _have type_ of something
isn't it?
Best,
Vladimir.
-----Original Message-----
From: "JoЦo Oliveira" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:43:07 -0200
Subject: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo R10's superproperty
Dear All,
The R10 property has the following definition:
R10 is example of (has example)
Domain: F5 Item
Range: F3 Manifestation Product Type
Subproperty of: P2 has type
According CIDOC CRM document, "the intension of
the subproperty extends the intension of the superproperty,
i.e. its traits are more restrictive than that of its superproperty"
To be a "example" is not a "more restrictive" case of to be a "type".
I think the most appropriate CIDOC CRM superproperty for R10
should be:
P137: is exemplified by (exemplifies)
Domain: E55 Type
Image: E1 CRM Entity.
So, to align the subproperty intension with the superproperty intension,
I think it's necessary to redefine (invert Range/Domain) R10:
R10 has example (is example of)
Domain: F3 Manifestation Product Type
Range: F5 Item
Subproperty of: P137 is exemplified by (exemplifies)
Now,
F3 Manifestation Product Type <has example> F5 Item
is a specific case of
E55 Type <is exemplied by> E1 CRM Entity.
Regards
Joao Lima
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
