Dear Dominic, all,

Yes, I will always defend that modeling is technology independent, limited however to the degree that science and technology should at least provide the prospect of implementation in the near future, and some viable approximations immediately. We definitely started the CRM before the technology was generally available but expected. The primary criterion is that the model reflects our insight about the scientific discourse we target at. As such, I see the model-level discussion to be between reasoning about "proposition sets" versus a "single binary proposition". The technical discussion should be about best and most effective approximations, regardless popular or not. The effectiveness will depend on use cases and platform requirements.

Please let us know, who is interested in participating in a narrower subgroup for creating  a document analyzing the alternatives.



On 5/11/2023 8:01 PM, Dominic Oldman wrote:

Just a quick question on this. We develop the model independently of technology. I can see that this discussion is getting technical. I currently implement propositions sets using RDF named graphs because we can and it works but it is not stipulated. Rob suggests that there are tech upgrades that might suit this issue better. However, isn't it the case that we need to be able to implement in different ways (I don't currently know much about RDF*) depending on the systems we have? How is RDF* implemented? - is it backwardly compatible with what we are all using? Do we give more modelling credence to things that everyone uses? etc., etc. But aren't these questions the reason why we are technology independent?  Given this, my question is, - have we got to a stage when the modelling now depends on a particular technology?  Can someone provide some clarification on this? Which solution is tech independent? Are they all independent of this tech discussion? One is at least.


On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 16:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <> wrote:

    Dear Robert,

    We have just created the new issue to discuss this in detail. We
    should prepare a detailed analysis, citing all pros and cons. May
    be we continue this discussion better in a subgroup?

    Named Graphs are not a very specific technology, if we take the
    fact that all current triple stores are actually implemented as
    quad stores, regardless whether they call the construct "Named
    Graph" or "context". We have used and implemented this feature,
    and it is very performant. It runs on BlazeGraph as well. I think
    their is not a simple answer to that. Performance can become a
    major issue, when you have really a lot of data.

    For the attribution of artists and "style of" vs "school of" etc.
    of the collection management system of the British Museum, the
    ResearchSpace Project had created a set of subproperties of P14
    carried out by, which could be used as input for a roles vocabulary.

    I did not propose to use Dig as is, but to consider the construct.
    The W3C annotation model is very interesting. We would need a
    connection to the Creation Event of making an annotation, and
    whose opinion it is, in order to make it CRM compatible. Why not
    allowing a Named Graph as target?  We should compare the segment
    construct of the W3C annotation model with the METS <area> types
    and extensions we used. The Dig model was used to trace provenance
    of annotated area through transformations of digital objects. That
    was very important for exchanging research insights on 3D models.
    To be discussed!

     We can extend E13 to Proposition Sets, which would be very
    important to describe consistently CRMinf and generalized
    observations. That would then be most effectively implementd via
    Named Graphs.




    On 5/11/2023 3:41 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

    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:

    (And reification has all the problems discussed in this thread


    On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 7:17 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig
    <> 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!



        On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:25 PM Martin Doerr
        <> 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!😁



            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.



            On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:27 PM Martin Doerr via
            Crm-sig <> 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.



                On 5/10/2023 11:55 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig
                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

                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 <>

                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.



                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

                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.




                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 <> 😉



                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 mailing list

-- ------------------------------------
                  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 Web-site:

                Crm-sig mailing list

-- ------------------------------------
              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 Web-site:

        Crm-sig mailing list

-- Rob Sanderson
    Senior Director for Digital Cultural Heritage
    Yale University

-- ------------------------------------
      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 Web-site:

    Crm-sig mailing list

 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 Web-site:
Crm-sig mailing list

Reply via email to