date:20180228

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

2018-02-28 Thread Christian-Emil Smith Ore

Dear all,

It is consistent to say “indeed” both to what Martin wrote and what George 
wrote below. If we see CRM as an ontology or a (logical) theory, then a 
realization or serialization,  if one prefer that term, in RDF is on the 
implementation level (or more formally it is a valid model for the theory). 
Unfortunately, after RDF/OWL was introduced 19 years ago there is a widespread 
tendency to blur the distinction between the two levels and also mix concepts 
and the particulars  (e.g  consider living persons to be concepts as seems to 
be done in AAT).



As George and Richard point out, it is extremely important to define good and 
robust guidelines for how to make a valid implementation (that is, compatible 
with the abstract ontology).  As Martin points out the 
implementation/representation of truly infinite categories , say numbers can 
only be partial. However, the implementation must be consistent with the 
ontology.



I am absolutely in favour of good, robust implementation guides.


Best,

Christian-Emil



From: George Bruseker 
Sent: 28 February 2018 15:25
To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore
Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

Dear all,

While I agree that it is the case that RDF is only one potential serialization 
of CRM, it is nevertheless a fact on the ground it is the most popular at the 
moment and a standard into which people invest real time and real money. It is, 
typically, where CRM becomes flesh. Since CRM aims on a practical level to 
support integration, it is clear that we need clear rules for the 
implementation of CRM into RDF. Otherwise, though we all use the same model, we 
still don’t make compatible data. In a recent issue, Richard Light has 
highlighted this need for an explicit and robust description of RDF 
implementation guidelines and began reviewing the various pieces of 
documentation that already exist and trying to consolidate them. This is 
extremely valuable work and is something that hopefully the whole community can 
contribute to creating a consensus around. Seen from a practitioner/implementer 
perspective Phil’s question is spot on: where do I put this data that CRM 
should be able to cover given its scope? While the issue can’t be resolved by 
moving the domain/range of that particular class, the practical issue does 
remain and is of interest to the CRM community as a real, on the ground data 
management need. Semantically, I think that the 'has content' solution 
discussed before can potentially provide a good conceptual model for the actual 
data of a symbolic/information object. In general, the particular issue of 
rdf:value as a potential equivalent of p3 has note in the RDF serialization is, 
I think, worth investigating relative to the official document for RDF 
implementation. The question raises fruitful thought and hopefully fruitful 
theoretic and practical answers.

Cheers,

George


On Feb 28, 2018, at 3:24 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.no>> wrote:

Indeed!
Christian-Emil

From: Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf 
of Martin Doerr mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
Sent: 28 February 2018 11:38
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

Dear All,

I'd like to remind you that RDF-OWL is only a historical phenomenon in the 
history of knowledge representation.
The CRM needs to define semantics that cover E-R, TELOS, KL-One, KIF, OIL, 
DAML-OIL, DL, RDFS, XML, Jason, and whatever will come up. Therefore we define 
it in FOL.

The puzzling gap to primitive values has on one side to do with hardware, which 
cannot cover infinite mathematical spaces. Consequently, each machine and 
encoding convention uses a different subset.

The other difference is deeper: On the machine, you can only use identifiers to 
talk about things. Digital objects themselves can be in the machine, but not 
necessarily are, and all others cannot. This causes a semantic gap which is 
common to all database schemata, and needs to be resolved by a series of 
practical conventions separately for each datamodel. It can only be resolved by 
having an ontology, which in the first place makes the distinction, so that it 
becomes clear, what each database schema describes about the world and what 
description is.

I hope this makes things theoretically clearer: The puzzle is what is 
information itself.

Best,

Martin

On 2/28/2018 10:39 AM, Conal Tuohy wrote:
I have used rdf:value for this purpose. 
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value

The CRM's origin was outside of the RDF space, and it is still considered to be 
something more abstract than any concrete expression in RDFS or OWL. This is 
why, I think, there remains a puzzling gap between RDF resources which are 
instances of CRM classes and their literal values which must be expressed using 
primitive RDF data types. The

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

2018-02-28 Thread George Bruseker

Dear all,

While I agree that it is the case that RDF is only one potential serialization 
of CRM, it is nevertheless a fact on the ground it is the most popular at the 
moment and a standard into which people invest real time and real money. It is, 
typically, where CRM becomes flesh. Since CRM aims on a practical level to 
support integration, it is clear that we need clear rules for the 
implementation of CRM into RDF. Otherwise, though we all use the same model, we 
still don’t make compatible data. In a recent issue, Richard Light has 
highlighted this need for an explicit and robust description of RDF 
implementation guidelines and began reviewing the various pieces of 
documentation that already exist and trying to consolidate them. This is 
extremely valuable work and is something that hopefully the whole community can 
contribute to creating a consensus around. Seen from a practitioner/implementer 
perspective Phil’s question is spot on: where do I put this data that CRM 
should be able to cover given its scope? While the issue can’t be resolved by 
moving the domain/range of that particular class, the practical issue does 
remain and is of interest to the CRM community as a real, on the ground data 
management need. Semantically, I think that the 'has content' solution 
discussed before can potentially provide a good conceptual model for the actual 
data of a symbolic/information object. In general, the particular issue of 
rdf:value as a potential equivalent of p3 has note in the RDF serialization is, 
I think, worth investigating relative to the official document for RDF 
implementation. The question raises fruitful thought and hopefully fruitful 
theoretic and practical answers.

Cheers,

George

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 3:24 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore  
> wrote:
> 
> Indeed!
> Christian-Emil
> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 
> 
> Sent: 28 February 2018 11:38
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90
>  
> Dear All,
> 
> I'd like to remind you that RDF-OWL is only a historical phenomenon in the 
> history of knowledge representation.
> The CRM needs to define semantics that cover E-R, TELOS, KL-One, KIF, OIL, 
> DAML-OIL, DL, RDFS, XML, Jason, and whatever will come up. Therefore we 
> define it in FOL. 
> 
> The puzzling gap to primitive values has on one side to do with hardware, 
> which cannot cover infinite mathematical spaces. Consequently, each machine 
> and encoding convention uses a different subset.
> 
> The other difference is deeper: On the machine, you can only use identifiers 
> to talk about things. Digital objects themselves can be in the machine, but 
> not necessarily are, and all others cannot. This causes a semantic gap which 
> is common to all database schemata, and needs to be resolved by a series of 
> practical conventions separately for each datamodel. It can only be resolved 
> by having an ontology, which in the first place makes the distinction, so 
> that it becomes clear, what each database schema describes about the world 
> and what description is.
> 
> I hope this makes things theoretically clearer: The puzzle is what is 
> information itself.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 2/28/2018 10:39 AM, Conal Tuohy wrote:
>> I have used rdf:value for this purpose. 
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value 
>> 
>> 
>> The CRM's origin was outside of the RDF space, and it is still considered to 
>> be something more abstract than any concrete expression in RDFS or OWL. This 
>> is why, I think, there remains a puzzling gap between RDF resources which 
>> are instances of CRM classes and their literal values which must be 
>> expressed using primitive RDF data types. The point of rdf:value, as I 
>> understand it, is to fill in gaps like these. 
>> 
>> On 22 February 2018 at 02:04, Carlisle, Philip 
>> > > wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> Naïve question.
>>  
>> Is there any reason why P90 has value could not/should not change its domain 
>> and range from:
>>  
>> Domain:Range
>> E54 Dimension  E60 Number 
>>  
>> to 
>>  
>> E1 CRM Entity  E59 Primitive Value
>>  
>> I look forward to you answers
>>  
>> Phil
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Phil Carlisle
>> Knowledge Organization Specialist
>> Listing Group, Historic England
>> Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 
>>  
>> http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ 
>>  
>> http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ 
>>  
>> Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are 
>> valued for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer 
>> focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do.
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, and 
>> protect it for

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

2018-02-28 Thread Christian-Emil Smith Ore

Indeed!

Christian-Emil

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Sent: 28 February 2018 11:38
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

Dear All,

I'd like to remind you that RDF-OWL is only a historical phenomenon in the 
history of knowledge representation.
The CRM needs to define semantics that cover E-R, TELOS, KL-One, KIF, OIL, 
DAML-OIL, DL, RDFS, XML, Jason, and whatever will come up. Therefore we define 
it in FOL.

The puzzling gap to primitive values has on one side to do with hardware, which 
cannot cover infinite mathematical spaces. Consequently, each machine and 
encoding convention uses a different subset.

The other difference is deeper: On the machine, you can only use identifiers to 
talk about things. Digital objects themselves can be in the machine, but not 
necessarily are, and all others cannot. This causes a semantic gap which is 
common to all database schemata, and needs to be resolved by a series of 
practical conventions separately for each datamodel. It can only be resolved by 
having an ontology, which in the first place makes the distinction, so that it 
becomes clear, what each database schema describes about the world and what 
description is.

I hope this makes things theoretically clearer: The puzzle is what is 
information itself.

Best,

Martin

On 2/28/2018 10:39 AM, Conal Tuohy wrote:
I have used rdf:value for this purpose. 
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value

The CRM's origin was outside of the RDF space, and it is still considered to be 
something more abstract than any concrete expression in RDFS or OWL. This is 
why, I think, there remains a puzzling gap between RDF resources which are 
instances of CRM classes and their literal values which must be expressed using 
primitive RDF data types. The point of rdf:value, as I understand it, is to 
fill in gaps like these.

On 22 February 2018 at 02:04, Carlisle, Philip 
mailto:philip.carli...@historicengland.org.uk>>
 wrote:
Dear all,
Naïve question.

Is there any reason why P90 has value could not/should not change its domain 
and range from:

Domain:Range
E54 Dimension  E60 Number

to

E1 CRM Entity  E59 Primitive Value

I look forward to you answers

Phil

Phil Carlisle
Knowledge Organization Specialist
Listing Group, Historic England
Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824

http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/
http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/

Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are valued 
for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer focus and 
working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do.

[Historic England Logo]

We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, and 
protect it for the future. Historic England 
is a public body, and we champion everyone’s heritage, across England.
Follow us:  Facebook  |  
Twitter  |  
Instagram Sign up to our 
newsletter

Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's remarkable story 
and its impact on the world. A History of England in 100 
Places sponsored by 
Ecclesiastical.

We have moved! Our new London office is at 4th Floor, Cannon Bridge House, 25 
Dowgate Hill, London, EC4R 2YA.

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal 
views which are not the views of Historic England unless specifically stated. 
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify 
the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way 
nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic England may become 
publicly available.

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

--
Conal Tuohy
http://conaltuohy.com/
@conal_tuohy
+61-466-324297

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

--
--
 Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
 Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
   |  Email: 
mar...@ics.forth.gr |
 |
   Center for Cultural Informatics   |
   Information

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

2018-02-28 Thread Martin Doerr


Dear All,

I'd like to remind you that RDF-OWL is only a historical phenomenon in 
the history of knowledge representation.
The CRM needs to define semantics that cover E-R, TELOS, KL-One, KIF, 
OIL, DAML-OIL, DL, RDFS, XML, Jason, and whatever will come up. 
Therefore we define it in FOL.


The puzzling gap to primitive values has on one side to do with 
hardware, which cannot cover infinite mathematical spaces. Consequently, 
each machine and encoding convention uses a different subset.


The other difference is deeper: On the machine, you can only use 
identifiers to talk about things. Digital objects themselves can be in 
the machine, but not necessarily are, and all others cannot. This causes 
a semantic gap which is common to all database schemata, and needs to be 
resolved by a series of practical conventions separately for each 
datamodel. It can only be resolved by having an ontology, which in the 
first place makes the distinction, so that it becomes clear, what each 
database schema describes about the world and what description is.


I hope this makes things theoretically clearer: The puzzle is what is 
information itself.


Best,

Martin

On 2/28/2018 10:39 AM, Conal Tuohy wrote:
I have used rdf:value for this purpose. 
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value


The CRM's origin was outside of the RDF space, and it is still 
considered to be something more abstract than any concrete expression 
in RDFS or OWL. This is why, I think, there remains a puzzling gap 
between RDF resources which are instances of CRM classes and their 
literal values which must be expressed using primitive RDF data types. 
The point of rdf:value, as I understand it, is to fill in gaps like 
these.


On 22 February 2018 at 02:04, Carlisle, Philip 
> wrote:


Dear all,
Naïve question.

Is there any reason why P90 has value could not/should not change
its domain and range from:

Domain: Range

E54 Dimension  E60 Number

to

E1 CRM Entity  E59 Primitive Value

I look forward to you answers

Phil

*Phil Carlisle*

Knowledge Organization Specialist

Listing Group, Historic England

Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 

http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/


http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ 

Listing Information Services fosters an environment where
colleagues are valued for their skillsand knowledge, and where
communication, customer focus and working in partnership are at
the heart of everything we do.


Historic England Logo 

We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic
environment, and protect it for the future. Historic England
 is a public body, and we
champion everyone’s heritage, across England.
Follow us: Facebook
  |Twitter
  | Instagram
 Sign up to our
newsletter




Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's
remarkable story and its impact on the world. A History of England
in 100 Places  sponsored
by Ecclesiastical

.


We have moved! Our new London office is at 4th Floor, Cannon
Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, London, EC4R 2YA.


This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
personal views which are not the views of Historic England unless
specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please
delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do
not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic England may
become publicly available.


___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr 
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig





--
Conal Tuohy
http://conaltuohy.com/
@conal_tuohy
+61-466-324297


___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



--
--
 Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
 Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
   |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
 |
   Center for Cultural

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

2018-02-28 Thread Martin Doerr

Dear Philip,

Let me clarify here a fundamental principle of the CRM, which is not
negotiable:

Labels are mnemonics, and not semantics. There is no way by selecting a
term to overcome the ambiguity of natural
language. A CRM property is therefore defined semantically by the scope
note and the domain and range. The fact that in English you may
interpret the word "value" in a similar way for other things has nothing
to do with ontology, as a system of language-neutral senses. There may
only be arguments to chose another label, but not to reapply the
property to other things because of the label.

To raise domain or range to E1 is, in general, an error: In an open
world, without any substance for a thing defined, there is no way to
determine if a property is consistently applied and comparable to others.
It was an error to raise Dimension to E1, and that should be fixed in
the next releases.

If we interpret "value" as content, and not as quantity, which would be
a remarkable shift of meaning, the first question we have to answer is
what is the smallest class for which we are sure that it comprises all
things that have a content in a way we can objectify it. E1 has the only
semantics that it is something which can be identified unambiguously.
This is not enough to say in which way it could have a "value".

For all those that have the same questions, I'd like to point to our new
guidelines of modelling principles, and ask if you find an answer in
there or if this text confuses more;-).

All the best,

Martin

On 2/21/2018 6:04 PM, Carlisle, Philip wrote:

Dear all,
Naïve question.

Is there any reason why P90 has value could not/should not change its
domain and range from:

Domain: Range

E54 Dimension E60 Number

E1 CRM Entity E59 Primitive Value

I look forward to you answers

Phil

*Phil Carlisle*

Knowledge Organization Specialist

Listing Group, Historic England

Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824

http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/

http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/

Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues
are valued for their skillsand knowledge, and where communication,
customer focus and working in partnership are at the heart of
everything we do.

Historic England Logo

We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment,
and protect it for the future. Historic England
is a public body, and we champion
everyone’s heritage, across England.
Follow us: Facebook
|Twitter
| Instagram
Sign up to our newsletter

Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's
remarkable story and its impact on the world. A History of England in
100 Places sponsored by
Ecclesiastical
<%20http://www.ecclesiastical.com/fororganisations/insurance/heritageinsurance/100-places/index.aspx>.

We have moved! Our new London office is at 4th Floor, Cannon Bridge
House, 25 Dowgate Hill, London, EC4R 2YA.

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
personal views which are not the views of Historic England unless
specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete
it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use,
copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it.
Any information sent to Historic England may become publicly available.

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

2018-02-28 Thread Conal Tuohy

I have used rdf:value for this purpose.
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value

The CRM's origin was outside of the RDF space, and it is still considered
to be something more abstract than any concrete expression in RDFS or OWL.
This is why, I think, there remains a puzzling gap between RDF resources
which are instances of CRM classes and their literal values which must be
expressed using primitive RDF data types. The point of rdf:value, as I
understand it, is to fill in gaps like these.

On 22 February 2018 at 02:04, Carlisle, Philip <
philip.carli...@historicengland.org.uk> wrote:

> Dear all,
> Naïve question.
>
>
>
> Is there any reason why P90 has value could not/should not change its
> domain and range from:
>
>
>
> Domain:Range
>
> E54 Dimension  E60 Number
>
>
>
> to
>
>
>
> E1 CRM Entity  E59 Primitive Value
>
>
>
> I look forward to you answers
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Phil Carlisle*
>
> Knowledge Organization Specialist
>
> Listing Group, Historic England
>
> Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 <+44%201793%20414824>
>
>
>
> http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/
>
> http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/
>
>
>
> Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are
> valued for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer
> focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Historic England Logo] 
>
> We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, and
> protect it for the future. Historic England
>  is a public body, and we champion
> everyone’s heritage, across England.
> Follow us:  Facebook   |
> Twitter   |  Instagram
>  Sign up to our newsletter
> 
>
>
> Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's remarkable
> story and its impact on the world. A History of England in 100 Places
>  sponsored by Ecclesiastical
> 
> .
>
> We have moved! Our new London office is at 4th Floor, Cannon Bridge House,
> 25 Dowgate Hill, London, EC4R 2YA.
>
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
> views which are not the views of Historic England unless specifically
> stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system
> and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to
> Historic England may become publicly available.
>
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>


-- 
Conal Tuohy
http://conaltuohy.com/
@conal_tuohy
+61-466-324297

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90

6 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information