Dear all, I have to admit that I was somewhat skeptical when I first heard about the work on defining CIDOC-CRM in first order logic. The museum sector may find the CRM definition hard enough as it is. When I read the draft paper before the CRM-SIG meeting earlier this month, it stroke me that the formulation of CRM in first order logic was compact but very clarifying to me (I have to add that I have worked with logic and type theory before converting into Digital Humanities). I don't demand that everybody should read statements in first order logic and I don't demand that everybody should understand the long and complex formulation in OWL (in fact much more difficult to understand than the plain notation of FOL). A nice effect of the FOL formulation of CRM is that it will serve as a concise specification for the groups developing OWL (and DL) implementations of the standard, eg in Erlangen.
Best, Christian-Emil >-----Original Message----- >From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karl >Grossner >Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:00 PM >To: Carlo Meghini >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] reified association vs sub-event > > >> 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/ >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Crm-sig mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
