Dear all,
while I must agree with Rob that the three classes he proposed for
deletion are not a particular best pratice in ontology building from a
semantic point of view, I don't feel good with the direction the CRM
is going currently. At our museum we are following the CRM because it
is the only "really standardized" standard for our domain. It is
expressive enough for a full top level ontology while also covering
the domain of cultural heritage. We are not interested in yet another
standard that maps metadata in a very common way - we have enough of
these and if we would want to use dublin core we would do so. The full
potential of the CRM is what binds us to using it.
Concepts like "Title" are really important for our domain - it is one
of the most important metadata fields for documentation in our museum.
With the abolishment of properties and classes in CRM Base that were
used a lot in the past the SIG and the CRM takes a turn away from the
museum side of documentation towards being a very general ontology.
While I know development may always hurt a little bit, this does not
feel right in any way anymore.
I am asking myself: Is this really what the CIDOC CRM should do? Is it
possible for the CIDOC CRM to survive in comparison to standards that
are more widely spread while abolishing it's own user base? Do we
really want a domain ontology - extending CRM Base called "CRM Museum
Documentation Ontology" because we throw out everything that is museum
related out of CRM Base? At least I might have my long loved E84
Information Carrier back there... :D
No offense intended - just my two cents and the perspective of the GNM
Nürnberg on the current CRM development...
Best,
Mark
Am Di., 8. Nov. 2022 um 21:51 Uhr schrieb Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig
<[email protected]>:
Thank you for the clarification, Martin!
I have proposed the justifications for deleting three further
classes that do not, I believe, fulfil the criteria of being classes
in CRM Base.
And indeed, let us judge these objectively and by the given
criteria, rather than subjective and personal preferences. If we
come across a class that we simply cannot delete without irreparable
damage to the ontology, at *that point* let us reconsider the
criteria as being incomplete.
Thanks again,
Rob
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear All,
I just want to remind that we have a principle explicitly in the
introduction of the CRM not to add classes without distinct
properties of their own which is sufficiently relevant. By this, we
purged a lot of very useful classes from the CRM, because it is
"base".
I prefer not to hear again "if we don't like a class". I kindly ask
members to delete such terms from our vocabulary.
Any argument in favour of a class in CRMbase which is nothing more
semantics than multiple IsA, must be measured by this principle, and
not by likes.
If the principle is to be abandoned again, please make an issue. If
the principle is unclear, please make an issue.
Any issue for adding more custom classes to RDFS, to be discussed.
Best,
Martin
On 11/8/2022 5:46 PM, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear George and Robert,
Your comments are well taken and understood. I do not take a
position against or for the addition of this class (I'm not yet sure
of either decision), nor I support that "rules" must be always
respected. I just tried to find a good reason for not having already
introduced such a class (and thus facilitate the discussion).
Best,
Pavos
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 5:00 PM Robert Sanderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
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 [1],
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
[2] 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 [3])
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
--
Pavlos Fafalios
Postdoctoral researcher (Marie Curie IF - Project ReKnow [3])
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
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
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
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: [email protected]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
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
Links:
------
[1]
https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-363-form-and-persistence-of-rdf-identifiers
[2]
https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-555-rdfs-implementation-and-related-issues
[3] https://reknow.ics.forth.gr/
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
