Dear Pavlos,
I don't think this is a good solution. Every statement in a knowledge
base is an information object. That does not say however, what it refers
to in the universe of discourse (or real world). The identity of the
information object is the RDF file. The identity of Michelangelo, as
stated in the file, means Michelangelo the person and not the URI as a
string in that file. Isn't it?
This is still an issue to resolve: In CRMinf, a Proposition Set is
regarded as Information Object, but this is not what we actually mean,
we mean the "meaning" of that Information Object, i.e., its truth or
not. As such, CRMinf is inconsistent. This is, I think, Issue 614.
Best,
Martin
On 5/6/2023 12:43 AM, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear George,
An instance of a property class represents a statement / formal
proposition. Could we thus say that it is also an E73 Information Object?
Would multiple instantiation provide a solution to the problem you
describe? E.g.:
:painting_sistine_chapel
crm:P14_carried_out_by :Michelangelo .
*:statement1*
a crm:PC14_carried_out_by, *crm:E73_Information_Object* ;
crm:P01_has_domain :painting_sistine_chapel ;
crm:P02_has_range :Michelangelo ;
crm:P14.1_in_the_role_of :master_craftsman .
:attrAssign1
a crm:E13_Attribute_Assignment ;
crm:P140_assigned_attribute_to *:statement1*
... ... ...
Thoughts?
Have a good weekend!
Best,
Pavlos
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:36 PM George Bruseker via Crm-sig
<crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
Dear all,
When using the PC classes modelling structure we end up with a
class node for a property which we can then modify with things
like 'kinds' and 'modes' etc.
Since such a statement has meaning and comes from somewhere [e.g.:
that someone did something in some capacity (PC14 carried out by
... P02 has range E39 + P14.1 in the role of E55)] one sometimes
needs to provenance this statement with an E13 attribute
assignment. Ie we want to ground who made this claim.
In theory this would be done with E13 pointing to the node in the
typical fashion (p141, P140). However, the
class PC0_Typed_CRM_Property is not declared as a subtype of E1
CRM Entity in the PC extension file. As a result we cannot do this.
https://cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/7.1.1/CIDOC_CRM_v7.1.1_PC.rdfs
I would argue PC0_Typed_CRM_Property should be declared a subclass
of E1_CRM_Entity. Then it would be consistent with the rest of
the modelling.
Opinions?
Best,
George
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
Pavlos Fafalios
Postdoctoral researcher
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: fafal...@ics.forth.gr
Address: N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, 70013 Heraklion, Greece
Tel: +30-2810-391619
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
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:mar...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
