Friends
I'm working on a CRM/FRBRoo-based system (the store is RDF like, unorthodox RDF :-) (Sorry if the issue was already settled.) Beside E55 Type, I need something like rdfs:class, because I'm not comfortable using Type for "conceptual objects" like UDC classes, e.g. 111.85 = beauty (and ugliness) or 347.51 = civic responsibility in general; but also for "the 4 Evangelists". I'm tempted to extend CRM/FRBRoo and to make rdfs:class a subclass of E28 Conceptual Object. Wordnet defines: • S: (n) concept, conception, construct (an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances) inherited hypernyms: • S: (n) idea, thought (the content of cognition; the main thing you are thinking about) "it was not a good idea"; "the thought never entered my mind" • S: (n) content, cognitive content, mental object (the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned) • S: (n) cognition, knowledge, noesis (the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning) • S: (n) psychological feature (a feature of the mental life of a living organism) • S: (n) abstraction, abstract entity (a general concept formed by extracting common features from specific examples) • S: (n) entity (that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)) and • S: (n) class, category, family (a collection of things sharing a common attribute) "there are two classes of detergents" inherited hypernyms: • S: (n) collection, aggregation, accumulation, assemblage (several things grouped together or considered as a whole) • S: (n) group, grouping (any number of entities (members) considered as a unit) • S: (n) abstraction, abstract entity (a general concept formed by extracting common features from specific examples) • S: (n) entity (that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)) Their "lowest common hypernym" is "abstraction", 2/4 steps up in the hierarchy. But in practice the border between them is often unclear. For instance, if I say: "books printed before 1501", that's a class. But if this class has a name, say "incunable", I would see it as a concept. So, what do you think ? It is reasonable to make such an extension ? Thanks, Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Matei director, Direcția Cercetare, Evidență a Patrimoniului Cultural Mobil, Imaterial și Digital [Movable, Intangible and Digital Heritage Department] (aka CIMEC) Institutul Național al Patrimoniului [National Heritage Institute] București [Bucharest, Romania] tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64 www.cimec.ro
