Hi Martin, I would like to be involved.
Thanks, Dominic On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 19:34, Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > 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 😉 >>>>> >>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------ >> 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
