Dear all,I think this should be discussed in terms of the issue 602 ; From my understanding, a new specialized class of Attribute Assignment can observe and describe more than one propositions and situations and properties of this class will function as umbrella for the previous sub-properties of p140 and P141 - I think this is a proposal, expressed in 602, which assigns new semantics to E13 and makes it an argumentation class (so, this is part of the discussion and the schema proposed for 602 and maybe a solution to the problem)
BRs, Athina On 2024-09-24 11:36, Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear All,Just quickly jotting down the questions I had (I hope I don't misquote anyone):1) If E13 Attribute Assignment is problematic and should be used only for reifications, would that mean that P140, P141 can no longer have any subproperties?Christian-Emil: E13 shouldn't be restricted to reifications George: sort out CRMbase first, then the extensionsAnd would we then need a new Class / superproperties, not with (1,1:—,—) ? The properties still seem to want to be grouped.2) If P38 "deassigned" doesn't have (1,1:—,—), does this also apply to P37 "assigned"?Think of having a list of URI identifiers and changing the base URL. George: argues that P38 should have (1,1:—,—)Christian-Emil: sees the point, and the same with measurement. Decouple it from E13.3) Condition States: One Assessment may create more than one Condition State. But are there "objective" Condition States that do not come from a Condition Assessment? I.e. is the quantification of P35 "has identified" really (—,—:0,n), or is it (—,—:1,n) ?@Thanasis: sorry, I forgot which of the two versions would break some modelling principles.Best, WolfgangAm 09.09.2024 um 15:14 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <[email protected]>:Dear Eleni,Please use the thread below for Issue 672. I propose to decide it in this SIG, with all down-stream implications Christian-Emil is pointing to.The comment in the last SIG:"This will have implications for the S25 Relative Dimension construct in sci." is obsolete. S25 will no more be under the umbrella of E13. This will be in the solution of issue 602, interface between CRMsci and CRMinf, consistently with the decision in CRMinf to regard E13 as subclass of I1 Argumentation, and not vice versa.-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Quantifiers of P140,P141,P177 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:10:22 +0200 From: Martin Doerr <[email protected]> To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore <[email protected]>On 3/20/2024 8:24 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:That is true. Thanasis pointed out that a single condition assessment may comprise more than one thing. So P34 concerned (was assessed by) should not be (1.1:0:n). In the other hand the same can be said about type assignment and P41 classified (was classified by) which currently is (1,1:0,n). So maybe we should reconsider all the properties listed in my email. Again E13 is a somewhat problematic class and should perhaps be confined to reifications.yes🙂🙂Best, Christian-Emil From: Martin Doerr <[email protected]> Sent: 19 March 2024 21:03 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Quantifiers of P140,P141,P177On a second thought: "deassigned" should not be subproperty of P14 co1. It violates (1,1: 0,n), isn't it?On 3/19/2024 8:52 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:Dear Martin,I have read this issue a little late. I have no problem with your argumentation. There may be a side effect.P35: Quantification: many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n) For all x,y we have P37(x,y) ⇒ P141(x,y)Since the quantification of P35 is (1,n:0,n), then it may exist P37(a,b) and P37(a,c) and b is not c. (if not the quantification should be (1,1:0,n). From the subproperty definitionP37(a,b) ⇒ P141(a,b) and P37(a,c) ⇒ P141(a,c)so we can conclude that P141(a,b) and P141(a,c) which contradicts the proposed quantification (1,1:0,n) of P141. In general a subproperty cannot have a less restrictive quantification than its superproperty. If I am correct we have check the scopenotes ofP34, P35, P37, P38, P40, P42 P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by) Domain: E13 Attribute Assignment Range:E1 CRM Entity Superproperty of:E14 Condition Assessment. P34 concerned (was assessed by): E18 Physical Thing [ (1,n:0,n), not OK] E16 Measurement. P39 measured (was measured by): E18 Physical Thing [OK] E17 Type Assignment. P41 classified (was classified by): E1 CRM Entity [OK]P141 assigned (was assigned by) Domain: E13 Attribute Assignment Range:E1 CRM Entity Superproperty of:E14 Condition Assessment. P35 has identified (identified by): Ε3 Condition State [ (1,n:0,n), not OK] E15 Identifier Assignment. P37 assigned (was assigned by): E42 Identifier [ (0,n:0,n), not OK] E15 Identifier Assignment. P38 deassigned (was deassigned by): E42 Identifier [ (0,n:0,n), not OK] E16 Measurement. P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension [ (1,n:0,n), not OK] E17 Type Assignment. P42 assigned (was assigned by): E55 Type [ (1,n:0,n), not OK]In all the scopepnotes (P34, P35, P37, P38, P40, P42 ) the instance of the range is in singular number. So the quantifications can be adjusted without problem.Best, Christian-EmilFrom: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <[email protected]>Sent: 24 January 2024 19:09 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Quantifiers of P140,P141,P177 Dear All,I remember a discussion about the quantifiers of P140, P141, assigns attribute...As it stands now, they are both "many to many (0,n:0,n)". P177 assigned property of type, has "many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n)"Firstly, all must be necessary. you cannot assign a property type without a domain and range. Secondly, the scope notes of all these properties do use singular, "the": "This property associates an instance of E13 Attribute Assignment with the type of property or relation that this assignment maintains to hold between the item to which it assigns an attribute and the attribute itself"Thirdly, multiple values confuse which is which. I remember a discussion that, theoretically, if you have: a) one domain, one type, many ranges b) many domains, one type, one range c) one domain, many types, one range,The propositions are well defined. I assume that this discussion was never ended, nor such constraints be formulated in Logic. I doubt it can be in FOL, and is, for any user, utterly confusing.The quantifiers must be: "many to one, necessary (1,1:0,n)"Generalizing single property assigments for ISSUE 602, this must be resolved.best, Martin -- ------------------------------------ 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 Email: [email protected] Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl-- ------------------------------------ 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 Email: [email protected] Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl-- ------------------------------------ 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 Email: [email protected] Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl -- ------------------------------------ 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 Email: [email protected] Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
