A problem is that
A1 Excavation Processing Unit
Subclass of: S1 Matter Removal
S4 Observation
S1 Matter Removal
Subclass of: E7 Activity
Superclass of: E80 Part Removal
S2 Sample Taking
E11 Modification
Subclass of: E7 Activity
Superclass of: E12 Production
E79 Part Addition
E80 Part Removal
So the following cannot be the case in the current models unless we make A1 a
subclass of E11 Modification.
AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by)
Domain: A1 Excavation Processing Unit
Range: A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Subproperty of: P31 has modified (was modified by)
I remember that we had a discussion about this, and may be a decision is hidden
somewhere.
Best,
Christian-Emil
________________________________
From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr via
Crm-sig <[email protected]>
Sent: 25 November 2022 18:34
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Digging for a unknown issue, help needed
Dear Christian-Emil,
I think it is 469 and 365, as well as the introduction about compatibility of
extensions:
1 A new class or property is added to an extension of the CIDOC CRM,
which is not covered by superclasses other than E1 CRM Entity or a
superproperty in the CIDOC CRM respectively. In this case, all facts described
only by such concepts are not accessible by queries with CIDOC CRM concepts.
Therefore, the extension should publish in a compatibility statement the
additional relevant high-level classes and properties needed to retrieve all
facts documented with the extended model. This case is a monotonic extension.
We may argue that AP5 is a modification in any case, even if it ends up in
complete destruction. Then, the end of existence is however not implied.
Otherwise, it is a Logical OR of modification and destruction.
Opinions?
Best,
Martin
On 11/25/2022 2:03 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
In the work with the cleanup of the definition document for CRMarcheo, I found
a comment (written by myself) next to
AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by)
Domain:
A1<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gemIVVKyVULkTNT73_iBvV53fjQUM6hYKw_D_tBstKI/edit#heading=h.nmf14n>
Excavation Processing Unit
Range:
A8<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gemIVVKyVULkTNT73_iBvV53fjQUM6hYKw_D_tBstKI/edit#heading=h.2szc72q>
Stratigraphic Unit
Subproperty of: P31 has modified (was modified by)
The comment is as follows (17.09.2020):
DECISION: the sig will start a new issue regarding the superproperty of AP5.
Candidates involve P31 has modified (D: E11 Modification; R: E18 Physical
Thing). Any decision will affect the definition of A1 Excavation Process[ing]
Unit ( see issue 446).
The new issue should be of a more general interest than the particulars of
AP5’s superproperty, and address the question of declaring superproperties in
the CRMbase exclusively (to the extent it’s possible) or across family models.
HW: CEO (?) to check the CRMbase properties that generalize to CRM extensions.
(this is the content of new issue)
Which issue is the 'new issue' referred to?
Best,
Christian-Emil
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
