I agree with George that this should be added. There are plenty of cases of classes without additional properties that serve only to join two parent classes. For example E22_Human-Made_Object, E25_Human-Made_Feature, and E34_Inscription. There are also remaining leaf nodes with no properties with only one parent class, such as E27_Site. Further, there are classes that have a property, but which is semantically indistinguishable from its super property. If the requirement is a property, then I propose
Pxx_is_named_by (names) Domain: E1 Range: Exx_Name (previously E33_E41) Sub Property Of: P1_is_identified_by Super Property Of: P102 has title This property describes the naming of any entity by a name in a human language. And the Exx_Name Super Class: E33, E41 Super Class Of: E35 Title The discussion last time devolved to "Well we use those so we don't want to get rid of them so we're not going to even though they don't have properties". But here's the thing ... *everything* has a Name (by which I mean an E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation). And it's easy to demonstrate that E33_E41 is very well used. So ... I don't find the argument that we can't do this "because rules" very convincing when those rules are applied so inconsistently. Rob On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:18 AM Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear George, > > To my understanding (without having been involved in the > relevant discussions about having the E33_E41 class in the RDFS but not in > CRM), > and according to the discussion in issue 363 > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-363-form-and-persistence-of-rdf-identifiers> > , > classes that use to co-occur on things simultaneously without being > associated with properties only applicable to the combination of such > classes, are not modelled individually as subclasses of multiple parent > classes (a principle used for keeping the ontology compact). > > The 'E35 Title' class exists because there is a property 'P102 has title' > (of E71 Human-Made Thing) that needs to point to something that is both a > linguistic object and an appellation. > So, for having a CRM class "E? Linguistic Appellation", there should be a > property that needs to point to something that is both a linguistic object > and an appellation (and with the intended meaning), e.g. a 'has linguistic > appellation' property for E39 Actor or E77 Persistent Item. To my > understanding, since there is no such property, there is (currently) no > need to introduce such a class in CRM. > > Best, > Pavlos > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 12:50 PM George Bruseker via Crm-sig < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> It's not really though. In the majority of cases when you talk about a >> name you need to talk about a language too. Especially if CRM wants to be >> inclusive etc. We have a subclass 'title' of appellation that does allow >> but it only works for inanimate objects. So it is useless as a general >> case. The use of E33_E41 should be a default in most modelling cases with >> E41 being the exception (mostly names are in a language). The general idea >> of a name in a language is not an arcane concept, but the majority concept. >> Needing to use an arcane construct either E33_E41 or multi instantiation >> for the majority case when the standard could just provide the appropriate >> class and document it and allow people to build around it, would be a >> superior way to go imho. >> >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 12:04 PM [email protected] < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Surely the RDFS E33_E41 is just a workaround for a common multiple >>> instantiation that is problematic in RDFS land not a need for a new class. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *George >>> Bruseker via Crm-sig >>> *Sent:* 07 November 2022 15:58 >>> *To:* Elias Tzortzakakis <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is >>> a subclass of E41 and E33 >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank Elias, >>> >>> >>> >>> You are definitely right that it is ok in the actual doc but mis >>> referenced in the xml commentary. My point is not that the RDFS is wrong >>> and it is great that it is produced and solid. I am more interested in how >>> NOT having legitimate classes in the standard but compromising and just >>> putting them in RDFS means that a) we create all sorts of arcana around >>> what should be an open standard and b) because the class is not documented >>> in the specification document we don't actually have a rule to know what is >>> should be called. >>> >>> >>> >>> So it's more a process and principles level issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 5:29 PM Elias Tzortzakakis <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear George, >>> >>> >>> >>> The rdfs defines 1 such class using just 1 name the >>> ‘E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation’. >>> >>> The second name reference you are referring to >>> ‘E41_E33_Linguistic_Appellation’ exists only in the XML comments of the >>> rdfs file. >>> >>> >>> >>> There has been a discussion and decision about the correct order. >>> >>> Please see issue >>> https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-555-rdfs-implementation-and-related-issues >>> and search for post starting with In the 51st CIDOC CRM & 44th FRBRoo SIG >>> meeting >>> >>> *Decision*: keeping numbers of the numeric identifier in order. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thus the rdfs is valid and consistent but the comment lines should also >>> definitely be adapted to this decision. >>> >>> Thanks for spotting, >>> >>> >>> >>> I will correct this ASAP, >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Elias Tzortzakakis >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *George >>> Bruseker via Crm-sig >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 7, 2022 5:02 PM >>> *To:* crm-sig <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a >>> subclass of E41 and E33 >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> There are two references to the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33 >>> that allows you to talk about the language of a name (which is a super >>> common requirement... actually almost always necessary). I can't give you >>> it's official name because I dont know because it isn't in the spec doc and >>> it doesn't have ONE name in the RDFS. >>> >>> >>> >>> In one reference it is called: E41_E33_Linguistic_Appellation and then >>> later it is called E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation. Try find f in the rdfs >>> doc and you will what I mean. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/7.1.1/CIDOC_CRM_v7.1.1.rdfs >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Actually I don't care what it is called, but it would be nice if it was >>> really, really clear. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think this speaks against the practice of hiding classes we don't like >>> and call implementation classes in the RDFS and should make them full >>> classes in the standard so that they are fully vetted and controlled. It is >>> a fundamental class. It should be in the standard in the first place. >>> >>> >>> >>> And definitely it should not have two different name in the RDFS. Can we >>> confirm that it is supposed to be E33_E41 and not E41_E33? >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> George Bruseker, PhD >>> >>> Chief Executive Officer >>> >>> Takin.solutions Ltd. >>> >>> https://www.takin.solutions/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> George Bruseker, PhD >>> >>> Chief Executive Officer >>> >>> Takin.solutions Ltd. >>> >>> https://www.takin.solutions/ >>> >> >> >> -- >> George Bruseker, PhD >> Chief Executive Officer >> Takin.solutions Ltd. >> https://www.takin.solutions/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> > > > -- > Pavlos Fafalios > > Postdoctoral researcher (Marie Curie IF - Project ReKnow > <https://reknow.ics.forth.gr/>) > Centre for Cultural Informatics & Information Systems Laboratory > Institute of Computer Science - FORTH > > Visiting Lecturer > Department of Management Science & Technology > Hellenic Mediterranean University > > Web: http://users.ics.forth.gr/~fafalios/ > Email: [email protected] > Address: N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, 70013 Heraklion, Greece > Tel: +30-2810-391619 > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
