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.
Best,
Martin
On 5/11/2023 8:01 PM, Dominic Oldman wrote:
Hi
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.
D
On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 16:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
<crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> 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.
Opinions?
Best,
Martin
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:
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 <http://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
--
------------------------------------
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
--
------------------------------------
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
