I think we can remove the "two or more". A company (legal body) does not
have members in a strict sense.
I think it is fine groups as members of other groups to define the group
of employees etc in a company.
I can also understand the temptation to use groups of singletons etc to
express relations. Still I think one should find a better way. My
colleague Øyvind Eide did not like the idea to express the serialization
in RDF of this way to express relations between individuals.
Regartds,
Christian-Emil
On 24.11.2008 12:14, martin wrote:
Dear Christian-Emil,
Christian-Emil Ore wrote:
Dear all,
I will write a little note about the singleton and the groups. I will
just point out that the current scope note of group, states explicitly
that a group must have two or more members. The scope note does not
say anything about time since the persistent items are timeless. Thus
I assume that an office like the presidency of US is a group.
There is also another aspect with group, "act collectively or in a
similar way due to any form of unifying relationship". The question is
if all related persons have this property.?
That's a very good point! I would take this as a clear distinction of a
role as
an "office" in a Group from a pure relationship.
Should we just drop "two or more" ? Because an office may start with one
person, but be desolved before a second person would come in?
Best,
martin
Chr-Emi
Scope note
This class comprises any gatherings or organizations of two or more
people that act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of
unifying relationship
On 21.11.2008 18:30, martin wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
Dear Martin and all
I still think it is artifical because one in this way use groups as
extensions of thought predicates. This is of course already
introduce by
the use of group as a way to simulate/implement interpersonal
relations. I am not quit sure I buy the argument that this is the
ontological nature.
It also moves much of the deduction from the CRM "proper" to the type
system.
The most important thing for "my" user group is the short cut and
not the
elaborated path, because in written source one usually only get
information about the relation and nothing more. I am interested to
see
how the shortcut is done in this set approach
So I will no withdraw my suggestion until convinced or down voted.
Ad voting in the SIG. I think secret voting like in this case is not a
good patrh to follow. I prefer an open dabate.
Of course, I didn't want to count the vote, but I found the idea
interesting,
always in the spirit of keeping CRM a core model.
If no other votes come in until Monday, I regard the issue as accepted.
Best,
Martin
Regards,
Christian-Emil
Dear Christian-Emil,
Yes, this is the solution. Of course you may argue, that it is more
indirect.
P107 is both, individual member and subgroup membership. So, there
is a
subgroup
membership. My question, you may express the problem with "very
artificial", is actually
what the ontological nature, the substance of the roles are. If
they are
positions,
personae, they would be not so much relations between an Individual
and
the Group, but a
structure of the Group, and would be better expressed by
specializations
of Groups and
their parts. If we regard them as relational, they are better
expressed by
subproperties
or 107.1 . If we keep 107.1, and regard nevertheless the model of
singleton Groups as valid,
then, p107.1 would represent shortcuts over singleton Groups.
Opinions?
Martin
[email protected] wrote:
Dear all
First of all it is difficult to comment a solution which is not
presented
but just referred to. I assume that this unknown suggested
solution is
as
follows:
Assume a master and an apprentice: An actor can be the only member
of a
singleton group. The relationship master.-apprentice can be
expressed as
a
group having the master-singleton and the apprentice-singleton as
members.
The type of the singleton-group can express the relation the members
have
in the master-apprentice group. If this is the solution it is of
course
possible but very artificial like epicycle models of the planet
orbits.
I may be blind, but I dont find any sub group property in the model.
Regards,
Christian-Emil
Dear All,
I just received a contribution voting against P107.1 and P144.1,
with the argument that following our definition of Group, it can be
also
an office or
position. So, we could model master and apprentice as subgroups - no
need
for any extension.
Also, this could consistently describe changing positions.
Comments welcome.
Best,
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
