Dear All,
Supporting Thanassi, we have
a)
E22 (the statue, including the setup)
P2 has type E55 Type["Statue with setup"]
P46 is composed of E22 (the setup) P2 has type E55 Type ["Basisplatte"]
P46 is composed of E22 (statue proper) P2 has type E55 Type e.g. ["Statue
proper"]
b)
E22 (the setup) P2 has type E55 Type ["Basisplatte"] "don't know if ever had a
statue"
c)
E22 (statue without) P2 has type E55 Type ["Statue without Basiplatte"] "didn't use
a setup"
d)
E22 (the statue, including the setup)
P2 has type E55 Type["Statue with setup"]
P46 is composed of E22 (the setup) P2 has type E55 Type ["Basisplatte"]
p44 has condition E3 Condition State P2 has type ["Statue missing"]
has timeSpan [?:NOW]
The "pre CRM" Max points to is not a CRM issue, but an RDF & Open World issue.
You can do it in RDF: You define all CRM properties again as "not", and
interpret it
as three valued logic:
e)
E22 (the statue, including the setup)
P2 has type E55 Type["Statue with setup"]
P46 is composed of E22 (the setup) P2 has type E55 Type ["Basisplatte"]
P46N is not composed of E22 (statue proper) P2 has type E55 Type e.g. ["Statue
proper"]
But then, you have to decide if you mean "never had" or when?
Best,
Martin
On 7/11/2012 5:17 μμ, Wolfgang Schmidle wrote:
Dear all,
I am working on Arachne's Cidoc representation, and we came across a
problem with non-existent objects and how to state their non-existence.
A statue may be set up using e.g. a base or a plinth. In Arachne this
can be specified in a data field called "Aufstellung" ("setup"). One can
choose a description from a fixed list, for example "Basisplatte" or
"Fußplatte/Plinthe". Now, we could model it as
E22 (the statue, without setup) P46i forms part of E22 (the statue
plus the setup) P2 has type E55 Type e.g. "Basisplatte"
but I am told that the setup should be seen as a part of the statue.
Consequently we are modelling it as
E22 (the statue, including the setup) P46 is composed of E22 (the
setup) P2 has type E55 Type e.g. "Basisplatte"
However, Aufstellung may also have the value "ohne Basis" ("without
base"). In this case the second E22 would denote a non-existent object,
and its Type "ohne Basis" would state the non-existence of this object.
(If the data field is left empty, we make no statement at all about the
setup.)
Is this the right way to model it? And is there a problem in RDF with an
URI for a non-existent object?
Additional question: Does Cidoc have an opinion about the the exact
meaning of E22 P46 E22 P2 E55 "ohne Basis"? Let's take the word "sheep"
as an example, where the singular and plural forms are the same: one
sheep, two sheep. Is it comparable to A) "while most words have a plural
morpheme, the particular word sheep has none", or B) "for systematic
reasons we assume that all words have a plural morpheme, but for the
particular word sheep it is null"?
Thanks,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | 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) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
