Hi everyone, To be clear I at no point suggested changing the ontology specification. I proposed making the rdfs for pc classes consistent logically. It presently isn't. If this is too big a leap for some it is not a problem I will just implement it locally because I can't have unprovenanced statements.
Cheers George On Tue, 9 May 2023, 10:39 pm Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig, < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Dear Christian-Emil, All, > > For the reasons I detailed in my other email, I totally agree with your > point of view and would like to raise all possible caveats to this kind of > mixing up quick and dirty implementation solutions and consistent > conceptual modelling. > > If we need more classes, even on a provisional and experimental > perspective, I would strongly suggest to produce them and document them as > such, with stable URIs, and then refine progressively the ontology and > integrate it into the CRM family. Of course, a nice place to do this is > ontome.net 😉 > > Best > > Francesco > > Le 08.05.23 à 17:36, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig a écrit : > > Also: RDF(S) is an implementation technology. We can assume that there > exists a implmentation function from the CRM-FOL to RDF(S), but this may > not be a 1-1 function. Strange constructs like the PC0(?) may not have > counterparts in CRM-FOL. Changing the ontology on the bases of > special tricks used in the implementation may not always be a good idea, > but may inspire us to make well thought out and consistent changes in the > ontology. > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
