Hi all, Suppose someone's database contains a field for "find location", which, for a given record, contains "Ankara(?)".
We could interpret this to mean that "someone is led to believe that this item was found in Ankara", or that "someone is led to believe that the place where this item was found is Ankara". The second introduces an additional level of indirection, which may or may not be useful (e.g. when we are sure that two fragments of the same pot were found together, we're just not sure where that place is). Is there a preference for one over the other? Assuming the first interpretation, am I right in thinking that we reify the P7_took_place_at with an E13_Attribute_Assignment? If so, how do we link the E13 instance to the type of attribute that was assigned? In RDF land, I think this should look something like: <#find> a crm:E7_Activity ; crm:P2_has_type ex:FindActivity ; crm:P16_used_specific_object <#pot> ; crm:P7_took_place_at <#ankara> . <#find-location-attribute-assignment> a crm:E13_Attribute_Assignment ; crm:P140_assigned_attribute_to <#find> ; crm:P141_assigned <#ankara> ; ex:was_performed_with_surety false ; ex:attribute_that_was_assigned crm:P7_took_place_at . What the stuff in ex: should be, I don't know. Should we include the P7_took_place_at relation at all, given the open world assumption? ( Incidentally, I assume that if we want to provide some justification, we'd add: <#find-location-attribute-assignment> crm:P14_carried_out_by <#joe-bloggs> ; crm:P17_was_motivated_by <#inspecting-pot> ; <#inspecting-pot> a crm:E7_Activity ; crm:P14_carried_out_by <#joe-bloggs> ; crm:P16_used_specific_object <#pot> ; crm:P32_used_general_technique <#some-technique> . ) Relatedly, we have some data that gives locations as e.g. "near Ankara" and "between Mut and Balat". Are there suitable ways to encode this kind of qualitative and vague relationship? Yours, Alexander -- Alexander Dutton Developer, InfoDev; CLAROS, data.ox.ac.uk Oxford University Computing Services
