If the intent is that the assertion is in the discourse, and not a syntactic workaround for .1 properties that would be unnecessary if we had RDF* or property graphs, then I would say E13 is exactly the right approach to use. In comparison, I consider the PC classes to be just that - a syntactic work around needed in RDF and not part of the discourse. In LInked Art, in a discussion around uncertain attribution of artists and "style of" vs "school of", we posited the need for a property on E13 for this scenario. (Also the need for .1 on P11 for the same reason as we have it on P14)
I would say that Dig's annotation is *not* the correct approach for several reasons: * Named Graphs are a very specific technology that have never seen significant uptake and are likely (IMO) to decrease in usage once RDF* is formalized. * Dig needs to be updated, and Annotation is (I would hope) likely to go away ... because ... * ... it could just use the Web Annotation Data Model: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/ (And reification has all the problems discussed in this thread already) Rob On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 7:17 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Dear Martin, > > I agree that E13 is a poor man's solution to a complicated problem. But it > is for some, the solution available. Other solutions like Inf for > documenting historical argumentation and using named graphs is great as a > possibility. Using prov o to represent the meta discursive level of the > provenance of the dataset as such great. But my immediate interest was > simple the humble ability of E13 to be able to point to all statements that > can be made with precisely one link in CRM. I'll keep watching the space! > > Cheers, > > G > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:25 PM Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > >> Dear George, >> >> I agree with you below about the historical aspects. The annotation model >> has the same historical aspect, but is not limited to a single link. >> >> Let us discuss!😁 >> >> Best, >> >> Martin >> >> On 5/11/2023 12:41 PM, George Bruseker wrote: >> >> Dear Francesco, Martin, >> >> Again for the record since I seem to be being read at cross purposes, >> when I mention the word 'provenance' I do not mean it in the sense of >> dataset provenance (to which prov o would apply). I mean that in the world >> to be described (the real world of tables charis cats dogs scholars ideas >> etc.) there are real world events in which people attribute things to >> things (see my previous email). This is content of the world to be >> represented in the semantic graph (not a metagraph about the graph). This >> is describable and is described in CIDOC CRM using E13 and its friends. If >> you want to say that there was a historical situation that someone in your >> department said (likely in the information system) that some attribute >> related two things you can do this with E13 (or I have >> completely misunderstood the CIDOC CRM). This happens all the time in art >> history. One particular often arising case is an argument about who played >> what role in some object. Was Davinci the painter or was it Simon? This is >> just a hum drum case of needing to apply CIDOC CRM to real cases. Since E13 >> is a mechanism for so doing on all other statements, it would be a logical >> continuation that it could be used also on .1 statements. But for technical >> reasons it cannot, that is why I suggested a mild technical solution that >> makes the technical extension logically coherent. It is in this sense that >> I mean provenance and not in the metasense of the provenance of the data >> qua data, also an exciting but other issue to my mind. >> >> Cheers, >> >> George >> >> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:27 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig < >> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: >> >>> Dear Francesco, >>> >>> This is an excellent paper. >>> >>> I cite: "However, reification has no formal semantics, and leads to a >>> high increase in the number of triples, hence, it does not scale well. " >>> >>> I agree with your proposals. Prov-O mapping is a must for CRM-SIG. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> On 5/10/2023 11:55 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote: >>> >>> Dear Martin, George, All, >>> >>> I would not dare to suggest some solution of this complex issue but let >>> me hint to a couple of useful papers (among many others): >>> >>> Sikos, Leslie F., and Dean Philp, ‘Provenance-Aware Knowledge >>> Representation: A Survey of Data Models and Contextualized Knowledge >>> Graphs’, *Data Science and Engineering*, 5.3 (2020), 293–316 < >>> https://doi.org/10.1007/s41019-020-00118-0> >>> >>> Hernández, Daniel, Aidan Hogan, and Markus Krötzsch, ‘Reifying RDF: What >>> Works Well With Wikidata?’, in *Proceedings of the 11th International >>> Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems Co-Located with >>> 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2015), Bethlehem, PA, USA, >>> October 11, 2015.*, 2015, pp. 32–47 < >>> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1457/SSWS2015_paper3.pdf> >>> >>> >>> Once again, I would like to suggest carefully distinguishing between the >>> CRM domain of discourse, in which the E13 class is conceptualized, and the >>> issue of stating the provenance of the information modelled in the >>> discourse domain, including instances of class E13 as part of the modelled >>> domain. >>> >>> For this last task (or domain of discourse), it would seems reasonable >>> and in line with best practices to use the PROV model and the corresponding >>> PROV-O ontology, a W3C recommendation. Or providing a specific extension of >>> the CRM, compatible and aligned with the PROV model. But using PROV-O seems >>> a good choice in order to facilitate interoperability. >>> >>> There remains the more fundamental question of whether the current >>> debate about RDF implementation is not in fact indicative of a more >>> fundamental problem related to properties of properties and the implicit >>> and richer information they contain, which cannot be adequately expressed >>> in RDF without conceptualising them in terms of actual classes. Aren't >>> these rather hybrid P(roperty)C(lasses), especially if they should be >>> declared as subclasses of E1, to be considered as *de facto* classes >>> and not just properties? Because if they are just statements, then adopting >>> one or the other form of existing RDF reifications practices seems to be >>> the good way to go. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Francesco >>> >>> >>> Le 10.05.23 à 18:48, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit : >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I suggest to resolve the issue of referring to the provenance of .1 >>> properties more specifically: >>> >>> Solution a: Add properties to E13 to specify a .1 property. This may be >>> more effective than the double indirection via PC class instance and 4 >>> links of the E13 construct. >>> >>> Solution b: Use RDF reification for this specific problem via the PC >>> class. >>> >>> We need to examine in both cases the inferences we want to maintain >>> about the base property and its domain and range, and what the relevant >>> query construct is. >>> >>> Personally, I prefer solution c: Use the annotation model of CRM Dig, >>> which goes via Named Graphs. This is much more performant and logically >>> clearer, because Named Graphs are implemented as direct references to >>> property identifier, and maintain a reference count for each one. This is >>> an important logic in its own right. Inferences about the .properties would >>> work in out ouf of a Named Graph, whereas the reification may need >>> additional rules. >>> >>> The query languages of Quad stores support them explicitly. >>> >>> The latest version of 3M supports Named Graph definitions. This feature >>> should be tested. >>> >>> I would rather discourage E13 in the long term as a means to denote >>> provenance generally and recommend a uniform use of Named Graphs. I am >>> aware that not all RDF encodings support the feature. I that case we could >>> resort to reification. >>> >>> Opinions? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> On 5/9/2023 10:37 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig 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 >>> listCrm-sig@ics.forth.grhttp://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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------ >> 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 > -- Rob Sanderson Senior Director for Digital Cultural Heritage Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
