Hi Vladimir,
I think this clearly goes beyond the "intended" use of P103. We had discussions
in the past
about a "Metacrm", i.e., a set of operators that allow to derive from CRM
properties,
which are designed to hold for particulars, "usual" properties holding between
all instances of some categories (E55). The discussion more or less stuck with
Guenther Goerz' proposal to use default logic, which seems to be promising but
was not further developed into a demonstrator.
I think the topic is still "hot", and still maintain
that it can be described by a suitable metaschema generated from the CRM.
The question, if we would necessarily dive into a non-decidable subset of 2nd
order logic
is also in the air, even though I do not believe it until I see a real example
of
such an undecidable question.
Best,
Martin
Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
Thanks a lot, Stephen,
In my case, I would like to link two instances of E55 Type:
engraving (technique type) [E55] and engraving (object type) [E55]
to describe "intensional" knowledge like in the phrase
"engraving techniques usually produce engravings".
The E55 is also a sub-class of E71.
If I understand you correctly, I can write:
engraving (technique type) [E55] -> P103 was intended for (was
intention of) -> engraving (object type) [E55].
Vladimir
2008/11/20, Stephen Stead <[email protected]>:
Vladimir
The E29 Design or Procedure is a sub-class of E71 Man-Made Thing and so P103
was intended for (was intention of) can be used to link to an instance of
E55 Type {Making of an instance of object type x}. Of course actual
instances of E12 Production can also be linked via P2 has type (is type of)
to the same instance of E55 Type.
The mismatch has already been corrected but well caught!
P68 usually employs (is usually employed by): E57 Material
P68 usually employs (is usually employed by)
Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Vladimir Ivanov
Sent: 20 November 2008 10:04
To: crm-sig
Subject: [Crm-sig] metonymy
Dear All,
there is a P103 in the CRM which models
"methods and techniques of use" intended for "specific man-made things" .
How could one model that a method or a technique is usually
used to produce (or intended to produce) particular type of "man-made
things"?
Such a property could be out of the CRM's scope,
but it provide quite common knowledge.
The CRM already defines "P68 foresees use of "
which links techniques and materials in a similar manner.
(remark: there is a mismatch of "P68" name netween E29 definition and
Property definition in v.4.3)
Best,
Vladimir Ivanov.
_______________________________________________
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
