> Without sounding polemic, I’d like to comment on the “something more > appropriate for 2014”. Please note that I am a peaceful guy
thank goodness, me too. ;^) > and, on top of that, a great fan of description logics, > which I have been using for twenty years (alas). > I think the appropriateness of logic is not time-related, but rather > purpose-related. “something more appropriate for 2014” was an ironic dig at myself for publishing my modeling patterns written in FOL, a form few can read, and not directly usable in systems -- as opposed to RDFS and OWL, which may be sufficient, and are accessible to more colleagues in the DH projects I work on. I love logic and the promise of inference and enthusiastically support analysis of CRM and its potentially more formal expression! I was 'not up to DL' at the time -- not critical of it. > In setting off for a logical analysis of the CRM, my > purpose is not implementation but rather understanding. My first > understanding from the yet incomplete exercise, is that no OWL > implementation is going to be equivalent to the CRM. So, if one is > interested in understanding the CRM, he should NOT look at an OWL > implementation. He may look at the current specs, but, if in need of some > formal account, I would not know where to look. > I see now that you and Martin had a paper on CRM in FOL. I had missed this, and wasn't commenting on the worth of the effort at all! The representation of my own ontology design patterns in FOL gave me understanding (and clarified still unanswered dilemmas). Ultimately I'm very attuned to implementation right now. > And then there are extensions: the CRM is being extended in a number of ways > and I believe it is better to analyse these extensions in the neutral > language of logic, entirely free of any expressive limitations. I guess I agree, since that's what I did for my own. They were/are more extensions of DOLCE, but CRM was always in the mix. I will read the paper and follow this work with great interest! Karl > > On 17 Oct 2014, at 03:17, Karl Grossner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This thread spurred me to finally revisit some work I did in 2010 that > > departed from both CIDOC and DOLCE by reifying a participated relation to > > get at roles among other things. Just wrote a blog post about it, with > > links and figures, and plan to convert the model soon from FOL and an > > object-relational schema to something more appropriate for 2014, like > > OWL2. (http://kgeographer.com/wp/stuff1a/) > > > > My (probably naive) view is that reification enables sensical open world > > systems, by permitting attribution of individual statements. Or if open > > world is strictly AAA, without identifying who Anyone is, what use would > > it be? > > > > Karl > > > > ------------------ > > Karl Grossner, PhD > > Digital Humanities Research Developer > > Stanford University Libraries > > Stanford,CA US > > www.kgeographer.org > > > > > > > > On 16/10/2014 12:08, martin wrote: > > > > I'd like to ask you to be focussed in your messages. > > While we're being focused, could I point out that Vladimir hasn't yet > > received any guidance on his original question? > > > > This related (IIUC) to a suggestion made by Martin and Dominic that, as an > > approach, sub-events are more "open world", while reification is more > > "closed world". > > > > Richard > > -- > > Richard Light > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crm-sig mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Carlo Meghini > Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie della Informazione [ ISTI ] > Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche [ CNR ] > Via G. Moruzzi, 1 - 56124 Pisa - Italy > Tel: +39 050 6212893 E-Mail: [email protected] > Fax: +39 050 6213464 Web: nmis.isti.cnr.it/meghini/ > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > >
