Dear Joao,
Your comments well taken! - one of the most important principles of the
CRM is that
the label is never a definition. In 15 years, we could never reconcile
linguistic values with
clear semantics under the functional restrictions of the CRM.
The label is only a mnemonic, the definition is exlusively the scope
note, and the identity
exclusively the E-number. If this could be better pointed out in our
documentation,
comments are MOST welcome.
The definition of "group" by Guarino& Welty has nothing to do with E74
Group. Actually,
he is talking about what other ontologies would call an "aggregate",
like ORE's
"ore:aggregation", or an enumeration, sometimes even a collection. We
cannot avoid that other ontologies use different senses for the same
word. However, we commit to the point Guarino is making here: E74 Group
is "constituted by" an aggregate of persons. The CRM property "has
former or current member" is a kind of constitution exactly in the sense
of Guarino.
Our reasons to use the label "Group" was to be close to one natural use
of the term, such as
a "Working Group", a "group" of (joined) industries, a group of hikers,
a discussion group etc. which imply common intentions, temporarily or
permanently.
It's always a hard decision to coin new terms, which make the ontology
appear more and more alien, but do not relieve from good definitions in
the end.
Any renaming proposals are also always welcome, and will be treated as
issues.
Best wishes,
Martin
On 28/4/2014 4:15 ??, João Oliveira Lima wrote:
Dear Stephen Stead and Simon Spero,
Thank you for your response.
The picture is clearer but some doubts remains.
Maybe the term "Group" is not best to denominate the "Collective
Actor" because the term "Group" is intrinsically tied with the
"constitution" idea. See, for example, the follow example extracted
from "An Overview of Ontoclean" (Guarino & Welty, Handbook on
Ontologies, Springer Verlag, (2004)):
"Take for instance two typical examples of social entities, such as a
bridge club and a poker club. These are clearly two separate entities,
even though precisely the same people may participate in both. Thus we
would have a state of affairs where, if the social entity was the
group of people, the two clubs would be the same under the identity
criteria of the group, and different under the identity criteria of
the social entity. Note also that if a club changes its members it is
still the same club, but a different group of people. The solution to
the puzzle is that this is, once again, a constitution relationship: a
club is constituted of a group of people.".
In addition, it's possible to talk about an instance of "E40
Legal Body" that was constituted by only one "E21 Person".
I've seen now that the FRBRoo
'F15 Complex Work' R10_has_member 'F1 Work'
has similar membership structure:
'E74 Group' P107_has_current_or_former_member 'E39 Actor'.
Joao Lima
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Stephen Stead <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Joao Lima
Do not be fooled by the name E74 Group! E74 Group is by definition
groups of actors. The group of legislation (each an E28 Conceptual
Objects)that you are mention is itself, another E28 Conceptual
Object). The part decomposition function (using the appropriate
Properties depending on the sort of things that have whole-part
relationships) generally deals with this kind of thing.
Hope This Helps
SdS
Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075 <tel:%2B44%2020%208668%203075>
Mob +44 7802 755 013 <tel:%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
E-mail [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
*From:*Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *João
Oliveira Lima
*Sent:* 28 April 2014 01:04
*To:* crm-sig
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] E74 Group - Generalization
I was wondering if the class "E74 Group" could be generalized as
follows:
"E74 Group"
Subclass of "E1 Entity";
"P107 has current or former member (is current or former member of)"
Domain "E74 Group"
Range "E1 Entity".
With this generalization would be possible to represent groups of
any entities (not just E39 Actors).
For example, in the legislative process, a bill may be part of a
group of bills that move together, as they dealt with similar
matters. The bill group membership (or the exclusion) is
formalized by a document (petition). In the field of cultural
heritage, there are examples of groups like this?
Regards,
Joao Lima
_______________________________________________
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
