Is this a job for meta-CRM? Do you want to say "we assert this is the type of statue that *normally* has a base BUT this instance of that class has lost its base"?
Hence all you have is two statements, one of a class membership (defined separately?) and one of a part loss event. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/working_editions_cidoc.html [halfway down the page] RE: sheep or sheep - for this case there is a plural morpheme, "sheep", isn't there? It just happens to be identical with the singular morpheme since in English we more or less lost the type of "Schaf" / "Schaefe" internal changes ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural On 7/11/2012 5:17 ??, 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 "Fu?platte/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 | -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 2 List-Post: [email protected] Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:44:31 +0000 From: Alexander Dutton <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] non-existent objects To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed If you're willing to use OWL, I *think* you can do (in Turtle): :statue a :Baseless . :Baseless a owl:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty crm:P46_is_composed_of ; owl:allValuesFrom [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty crm:P2_has_type ; owl:allValuesFrom [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty rdf:value ; owl:hasValue "Basisplatte" ] ] owl:cardinality 0 ] . or: :statue a [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty crm:P46_is_composed_of ; owl:allValuesFrom [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty crm:P2_has_type ; owl:allValuesFrom [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty rdf:value ; owl:hasValue "Basisplatte" ] ] owl:cardinality 0 ] . If that doesn't work (I don't know whether using allValuesFrom and cardinality together is legal), it may be possible to use owl:complementOf to say that the statue is in the complement of the set of things that have bases. (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#complementOf-def) This is pretty much my first foray into OWL, so please forgive my inevitable wrongness. Yours, Alex On 07/11/12 15:17, 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 "Fu?platte/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 ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig End of Crm-sig Digest, Vol 70, Issue 4 **************************************
