Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 490 -- E VOTE

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

YES!

On 5/10/2024 1:51 PM, Eleni Tsouloucha wrote:

Dear all,
During our last meeting, we didn't get to review Martin's HW 
for 
issue *490 *. 
It was decided that Martin's proposal to introduce property /Pxxx has 
complete copy (is complete copy of)/ would be put to an e-vote instead.


Please indicate your agreement or provide feedback by May 20.

All the best,

--
Eleni Tsouloucha
Philologist - MA Linguistics & Language Technologies
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory - Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)

Address: N. Plastira 100, GR-70013 Heraklion, Grece
email: tsoulo...@isc.forth.gr, eleni.crm@gmail.com
Tel: +30 2810391488



--

 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: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

Re: [Crm-sig] [NEW ISSUE]: missing inverse labels P81, P82, P171, P172

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I'd like to explain: The missing inverse label is not a statement that 
"the inverse property is not defined". The position of the CRM, based on 
FOL is that "inverse properties" are an artefact of RDF encoding. All 
properties are bidirectional, and per default directed. So, "we should 
define inverse properties" is not the real question. It is only if the 
inverse label is of any use in a semantic graph or query as starting point.


best,

Martin

On 2/8/2024 4:13 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear Eleni,

I'd suggest not to assign inverse labels, nevertheless. These 
primitive values do not constitute particular objects of discourse, 
albeit that there is a naming aspect.


P170, P168, P169 are different, they are epistemic constructs. Anyway, 
to be discussed!


Best,

Martin

On 2/8/2024 10:10 AM, Eleni Tsouloucha via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

Since we made E61 isA E59 AND E41, it means that there can be inverse 
properties for /P81 ongoing throughout/ & /P82 at some time within/. 
Which is implicit in the FOL for /P170 defines time (time is defined 
by) --/see v7.1.2 
<https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v7.1.2.html#P170> (Official 
(Base for initial ISO Submission) and v7.2.3// 
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-7.2.3>(draft, community version).


In first-order logic:
P170(x,y) ⇒ E61(x)
P170(x,y) ⇒ E52(y)
*P170(x, y) ⇒ P81i(x, y) ∧ P82i(x, y)*
Incidentally, we have documented that *P170(x,y) ⇒ P81(y,x) ˄ 
P82(y,x) *(see issue**508 
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-508-fol-for-p170>*, *Martin's post on 
23 July 2020 specifically), which got translated into listing the 
inverse forms of P81/P82, without bothering to revisit the lack of 
inverse forms for respective properties.


The same situation holds for /P171 at some place within/ and /P172 
contains/ (whose ranges are set to E94 Space Primitive).
Now that E94 isA E59 AND E41, we should define inverse properties for 
them (and these should have labels).


Best,

Eleni

___
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

  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
   
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Quantifiers of P140,P141,P177

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Christian-Emil,

I agree with all you write. The quantification should be (1,1:0,n) for 
all subproperties you have listed.


Best,

Martin

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 definition


P37(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 of


P34, P35, P37, P38, P40, P42


P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by)

Domain: E13Attribute Assignment Range:E1CRM Entity

Superproperty of:

E14 Condition Assessment. P34 concerned (was assessed by): E18Physical 
Thing [ (1,n:0,n), not OK]


E16 Measurement. P39 measured (was measured by): E18Physical Thing [OK]

E17 Type Assignment. P41 classified (was classified by): E1 CRM Entity 
 [OK]



P141 assigned (was assigned by)

Domain: E13Attribute Assignment

Range:E1CRM 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): 
E54Dimension [ (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-Emil

*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig 

*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:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  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: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

[Crm-sig] New Issue: Harmonizing CRMbase logically with CRMgeo

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,
In the course of updating CRMgeo to CRM 7.2.4, there is a logical 
problem to solve with P168, 169, 170, which define Declarative spaces 
and times, but CRMbase does not have these classes.


Nevertheless, these 3 properties *are designed* in CRMbase not to be 
used for phenomenal spaces and times. Therefore I here propose to 
formulate this as FOL rules in CRMbase, so that no formal inconsistency 
will occur when using CRMgeo proper to declare the 3 properties to be 
restricted to instances of SP6 Declarative Place, SP7 Declarative 
Spacetime Volume, SP10 Declarative Time-Span, or via subproperties of 
P168,P169,P170.


Hence:

*A)
*

P168(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P168(x,y) ⇒E94(y)

*P168(x,y) ⇒P1i(x,y)
*

*P168(x,y) ⇒ (¬∃z) [E92(z) ⋀ P161(z,x) ⋀ (P169 (u,z) ] *  Excluding the 
place to be a projection of a physical thing


*P168(x,y) ⇒ (¬∃z) [E4(z) ⋀ P161(z,x)] *   Excluding the place to be a 
projection of an instance of E4 Period


*B)*

P169(x,y) ⇒E95(x)

P169(x,y) ⇒E92(y)

P169(x,y) ⇒P1i(x,y)

*P169(x,y) ⇒ **(¬∃z)[E18(z) **⋀ P196(y,z)] *Excluding STV to be 
defined by a physical thing


*P169(x,y) ⇒ **¬ E4(y) * Excluding the STV to be an instance of E4 Period

*C)*

P170(x,y) ⇒E61(x)

P170(x,y) ⇒E52(y)

P170(x, y) ⇒P81i(x, y) ∧P82i(x, y)

*P170(x,y) ⇒ **(¬∃z)[E2(z) **⋀ P4(z,y)] *Excluding an instance of 
Temporal Entity to happen *at* this Time-Span


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: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

[Crm-sig] New Issue, inverse: Harmonizing CRMgeo logically with CRMbase

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

From the CRMgeo side, we have two choices:

Either we declare


Q10 defines place

Domain: E94 <#_SP5_Geometric_Place> Space Primitive

Range: SP6 <#_SP6_Declarative_Place> Declarative Place


*to be suproperty of P168i,*


Q14 defines time

Domain: SP14 <#_E61_Time_Primitive_1> Time Expression *Now*: 
E61_Time_Primitive


Range: SP10 <#_SP10_DeclarativeTime-Span> Declarative Time-Span


*to be suproperty of P170,*


Q16 defines spacetime volume

Domain: SP12 <#_SP12_Spacetime_Volume> Spacetime Volume Expression 
*Now*: E95_Spacetime_Primitive


Range: SP7 <#_SP7_Declarative_Spacetime> Declarative Spacetime Volume


*to be suproperty of P169,

OR:

**P168(x,y) ⇒SP6(x) * (SP6_Declarative _Place)
*P169(x,y) ⇒SP7(y)
P170(x,y) **⇒SP10(y)

*All the best,

martin


On 2/25/2024 8:40 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear All,

In the course of updating CRMgeo to CRM 7.2.4, there is a logical 
problem to solve with P168, 169, 170, which define Declarative spaces 
and times, but CRMbase does not have these classes.


Nevertheless, these 3 properties *are designed* in CRMbase not to be 
used for phenomenal spaces and times. Therefore I here propose to 
formulate this as FOL rules in CRMbase, so that no formal 
inconsistency will occur when using CRMgeo proper to declare the 3 
properties to be restricted to instances of SP6 Declarative Place, SP7 
Declarative Spacetime Volume, SP10 Declarative Time-Span, or via 
subproperties of P168,P169,P170.


Hence:

*A)
*

P168(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P168(x,y) ⇒E94(y)

*P168(x,y) ⇒P1i(x,y)
*

*P168(x,y) ⇒ (¬∃z) [E92(z) ⋀ P161(z,x) ⋀ (P169 (u,z) ] *  Excluding 
the place to be a projection of a physical thing


*P168(x,y) ⇒ (¬∃z) [E4(z) ⋀ P161(z,x)] *   Excluding the place to be a 
projection of an instance of E4 Period


*B)*

P169(x,y) ⇒E95(x)

P169(x,y) ⇒E92(y)

P169(x,y) ⇒P1i(x,y)

*P169(x,y) ⇒ **(¬∃z)[E18(z) **⋀ P196(y,z)] *Excluding STV to be 
defined by a physical thing


*P169(x,y) ⇒ **¬ E4(y) * Excluding the STV to be an instance of E4 Period

*C)*

P170(x,y) ⇒E61(x)

P170(x,y) ⇒E52(y)

P170(x, y) ⇒P81i(x, y) ∧P82i(x, y)

*P170(x,y) ⇒ **(¬∃z)[E2(z) **⋀ P4(z,y)] *Excluding an instance of 
Temporal Entity to happen *at* this Time-Span


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: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

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue, inverse: Harmonizing CRMgeo logically with CRMbase

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

From the CRMgeo side, we have two choices:

Either we declare


Q10 defines place

Domain: E94 <#_SP5_Geometric_Place> Space Primitive

Range: SP6 <#_SP6_Declarative_Place> Declarative Place


*to be suproperty of P168i,*


Q14 defines time

Domain: SP14 <#_E61_Time_Primitive_1> Time Expression *Now*: 
E61_Time_Primitive


Range: SP10 <#_SP10_DeclarativeTime-Span> Declarative Time-Span


*to be suproperty of P170,*


Q16 defines spacetime volume

Domain: SP12 <#_SP12_Spacetime_Volume> Spacetime Volume Expression 
*Now*: E95_Spacetime_Primitive


Range: SP7 <#_SP7_Declarative_Spacetime> Declarative Spacetime Volume


*to be suproperty of P169,

OR:

**P168(x,y) ⇒SP6(x) *  (SP6_Declarative _Place)
*P169(x,y) ⇒SP7(y)
P170(x,y) **⇒SP10(y)

*All the best,

martin


On 2/25/2024 8:40 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear All,

In the course of updating CRMgeo to CRM 7.2.4, there is a logical 
problem to solve with P168, 169, 170, which define Declarative spaces 
and times, but CRMbase does not have these classes.


Nevertheless, these 3 properties *are designed* in CRMbase not to be 
used for phenomenal spaces and times. Therefore I here propose to 
formulate this as FOL rules in CRMbase, so that no formal 
inconsistency will occur when using CRMgeo proper to declare the 3 
properties to be restricted to instances of SP6 Declarative Place, SP7 
Declarative Spacetime Volume, SP10 Declarative Time-Span, or via 
subproperties of P168,P169,P170.


Hence:

*A)
*

P168(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P168(x,y) ⇒E94(y)

*P168(x,y) ⇒P1i(x,y)
*

*P168(x,y) ⇒ (¬∃z) [E92(z) ⋀ P161(z,x) ⋀ (P169 (u,z) ] *  Excluding 
the place to be a projection of a physical thing


*P168(x,y) ⇒ (¬∃z) [E4(z) ⋀ P161(z,x)] *   Excluding the place to be a 
projection of an instance of E4 Period


*B)*

P169(x,y) ⇒E95(x)

P169(x,y) ⇒E92(y)

P169(x,y) ⇒P1i(x,y)

*P169(x,y) ⇒ **(¬∃z)[E18(z) **⋀ P196(y,z)] *Excluding STV to be 
defined by a physical thing


*P169(x,y) ⇒ **¬ E4(y) * Excluding the STV to be an instance of E4 Period

*C)*

P170(x,y) ⇒E61(x)

P170(x,y) ⇒E52(y)

P170(x, y) ⇒P81i(x, y) ∧P82i(x, y)

*P170(x,y) ⇒ **(¬∃z)[E2(z) **⋀ P4(z,y)] *Excluding an instance of 
Temporal Entity to happen *at* this Time-Span


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:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  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: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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 657: new example for P32 used general technique

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Very good!

M

On 2/18/2024 1:47 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

In addition to the HW being prepared for 657 to reformulate the scope 
note for P32, I am proposing a new example to replace the fictitious one:


The endbanding of codex S.Ar.20 (E11) used general technique 
blanket-stitch-with-core as primary component (E55). (Boudalis, 2023)


Works cited:

Boudalis, G. (2023) On the edge: Endbands in the Bookibinging 
Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean, Michigan: The Legacy Press, 
p.181


All the best,

Thanasis
___
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
   
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Thanasi, Eleni,

It is not clear to me why this is a concern. Both full paths shortcut 
different properties, P7 and P167. So, both should be mentioned. Raising 
a property to E92 is a different issue, ins't it?


My concerns, to be discussed, are if the falls within requires 
necessarily that both places are at rest.


Best,

Martin

On 2/19/2024 9:56 AM, Eleni Tsouloucha via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

maybe reconsider this piece of HW given the concerns voiced by Thanasis?

best
E

On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 5:23 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
 wrote:


In version 7.2.3 (if I have the correct file in front of me) we have
already added the following:

"This property is a part of the fully developed path from E93
Presence
through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within
(contains) to E53 Place."

This is the path from E93 Presence instead of E4 Period (both being
subclasses of E92 Spacetime Volume).

If it applies to both E4 and E93, should we push it a step up to E92
Spacetime Volume which actually owns P161 has spatial projection
in the
first place?

All the best,

Thanasis

On 02/02/2024 14:15, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
> Accepted!
>
> But, it seems it should be:
>
> "This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls
wholly
> within the extent of another instance of E53 Place, where both
places
> are defined in the same geometric system, i.e. they are at rest
to each
> other.
>
> It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any
> relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.
>
> This property is also part of the fully developed path implied
by P7
> /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has
spatial
> projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place.
>
> This property is transitive and reflexive.
>
> in FOL:
>
> P89(x,y) ⇒(∃u) [E18(u) ⋀P157(x,u) ⋀P157(y,u)]
>
> Then we can simplify the FOL of P7, and add the above FOL to
P121,122,189
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On 2/2/2024 12:28 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:
>>
>> The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the
statement “It
>> addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any
relationship
>> between things or phenomena occupying these places.”, which it
is not.
>>
>> I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-
>>
>> This property is also part of the fully developed path implied
by P7
>> /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has
spatial
>> projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both
>> places are defined in the same geometric system.
    >>
>> Stephen Stead
>>
>> Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013
>>
>> ste...@paveprime.com
>>
>> *From:*Crm-sig  *On Behalf Of
*Martin
>> Doerr via Crm-sig
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:05 PM
>> *To:* crm-sig 
>> *Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in
yellow:
>>
>>
>> P89 falls within (contains)
>>
>> Domain:
>>
>> E53 <#_toc8104> Place
>>
>> Range:
>>
>> E53 <#_toc8104> Place
>>
>> Quantification:
>>
>> many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)
>>
>> Scope note:
>>
>> This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls
wholly
>> within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.
>>
>> It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any
>> relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.
>>
>> However, this property is also part of the fully developed path
>> implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period
through P161
>> has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place,
>> where both places are defined in the same geometric system.
>>
>> This property is transitive and reflexive.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53)
/falls
>> within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)
>>
>> In first-order logic:
>>
>> P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)
>>
>> P89

Re: [Crm-sig] [NEW ISSUE]: missing inverse labels P81, P82, P171, P172

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Eleni,

I'd suggest not to assign inverse labels, nevertheless. These primitive 
values do not constitute particular objects of discourse, albeit that 
there is a naming aspect.


P170, P168, P169 are different, they are epistemic constructs. Anyway, 
to be discussed!


Best,

Martin

On 2/8/2024 10:10 AM, Eleni Tsouloucha via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

Since we made E61 isA E59 AND E41, it means that there can be inverse 
properties for /P81 ongoing throughout/ & /P82 at some time within/. 
Which is implicit in the FOL for /P170 defines time (time is defined 
by) --/see v7.1.2 
 (Official 
(Base for initial ISO Submission) and v7.2.3// 
(draft, community version).


In first-order logic:
P170(x,y) ⇒ E61(x)
P170(x,y) ⇒ E52(y)
*P170(x, y) ⇒ P81i(x, y) ∧ P82i(x, y)*
Incidentally, we have documented that *P170(x,y) ⇒ P81(y,x) ˄ P82(y,x) 
*(see issue**508 *, 
*Martin's post on 23 July 2020 specifically), which got translated 
into listing the inverse forms of P81/P82, without bothering to 
revisit the lack of inverse forms for respective properties.


The same situation holds for /P171 at some place within/ and /P172 
contains/ (whose ranges are set to E94 Space Primitive).
Now that E94 isA E59 AND E41, we should define inverse properties for 
them (and these should have labels).


Best,

Eleni

___
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
   
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Alternatively, we can assume that both places are not completely at rest 
to each other, but that the geometric relation holds for all times, for 
example, a boat swimming in a lake will be for all times a place for 
people in it, which falls within the lake boundaries.


In that case, both places must fulfill the same relation in their 
geometric reference systems at any time  these places exist together. 
Existence of a place means that there exists at least one and the same 
physical thing it is always at rest to. At a particular instance in 
time, all extents in different geometric reference systems can be mapped 
(projected) to each other, with the precision the origin of the systems 
is known. This mapping would be the base for comparing two places moving 
relative to each other.


I remember we discussed that, but never spelled out.

Best,

Martin



On 2/2/2024 4:15 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Accepted!

But, it seems it should be:

"This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place, where both places 
are defined in the same geometric system, i.e. they are at rest to 
each other.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

in FOL:

P89(x,y) ⇒(∃u) [E18(u) ⋀P157(x,u) ⋀P157(y,u)]

Then we can simplify the FOL of P7, and add the above FOL to P121,122,189

Best,

Martin



On 2/2/2024 12:28 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:


The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the statement 
“It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.”, 
which it is not.


I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-

This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both 
places are defined in the same geometric system.


Stephen Stead

Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013

ste...@paveprime.com

*From:*Crm-sig  *On Behalf Of *Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig

*Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:05 PM
*To:* crm-sig 
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

Dear all,

I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:


P89 falls within (contains)

Domain:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Range:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Quantification:

many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


However, this property is also part of the fully developed path 
implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through 
P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 
Place, where both places are defined in the same geometric system.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

Examples:

The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) 
/falls within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)


In first-order logic:

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)

[P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)

P89(x,x)

--

  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:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  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: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
   
 Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
 Web-site:http://www

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Accepted!

But, it seems it should be:

"This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place, where both places 
are defined in the same geometric system, i.e. they are at rest to each 
other.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

in FOL:

P89(x,y) ⇒(∃u) [E18(u) ⋀P157(x,u) ⋀P157(y,u)]

Then we can simplify the FOL of P7, and add the above FOL to P121,122,189

Best,

Martin



On 2/2/2024 12:28 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:


The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the statement “It 
addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any relationship 
between things or phenomena occupying these places.”, which it is not.


I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-

This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both 
places are defined in the same geometric system.


Stephen Stead

Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013

ste...@paveprime.com

*From:*Crm-sig  *On Behalf Of *Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig

*Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:05 PM
*To:* crm-sig 
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

Dear all,

I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:


P89 falls within (contains)

Domain:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Range:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Quantification:

many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


However, this property is also part of the fully developed path 
implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 
has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, 
where both places are defined in the same geometric system.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

Examples:

The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) /falls 
within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)


In first-order logic:

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)

[P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)

P89(x,x)

--

  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:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  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: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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework,

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

We just observed that the FOL statements of P89 should also contain the 
formulation that both places need to be at rest to each other (i.e., 
fall into the same geometric system). This needs to be checked for all 
place to place relations.


On 2/1/2024 9:04 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:

P89 falls within (contains)

Domain:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Range:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Quantification:

many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


However, this property is also part of the fully developed path 
implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 
has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, 
where both places are defined in the same geometric system.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

Examples:

The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) /falls 
within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)


In first-order logic:

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)

[P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)

P89(x,x)

--

  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: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
   
 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

[Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:

P89 falls within (contains)

Domain:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Range:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Quantification:

many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


However, this property is also part of the fully developed path implied 
by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has 
spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both 
places are defined in the same geometric system.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

Examples:

The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) /falls 
within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)


In first-order logic:

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)

[P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)

P89(x,x)

--

 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: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

[Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Quantifiers of P140,P141,P177

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

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: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

Re: [Crm-sig] Example for propositional objects

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear George,

Yes, I am very much aware of what you are describing and completely 
agree. I am right now looking for the original text. The text itself 
in Bekker's edition constitutes a Symbolic Object with propositional 
meaning, an Expression in the sense of FRBR.

The search for precision is one aspect of what we do.

The other aspect is accepting a certain fuzziness. The class E89 
Propositional Object was introduced to capture the sense of FRBR Work, 
which, /in one interpretation/, constitutes an abstraction of meaning 
from the symbolic form, in particular from translations.


As "knowledge engineer" I just neutrally observe, that sufficient people 
support the idea of some sort of preservation of meaning across 
translations, and others vehemently oppose. In the christian theological 
background, authorized translations are regarded as "the Word of God", 
i.e., transferring an even identical and in any case comprehensible 
meaning, which, within this tradition, must not be questioned. Medieval 
theological and philosophical tradition was widely using Aristotle in 
Latin translation without questioning the essential transfer of meaning 
by the Latin text.


We need also not forget that early Latin (and Arabic) translators were 
much closer to the common senses of the ancient Greek world. As such, 
our ability today approximating the Greek original meaning from its 
linguistic expression only may not necessarily be superior to consulting 
also relevant translations.


As such, my position about the preservation of meaning across 
translations is an observational one.


I assume you agree, that undeniably scholars around the world cite such 
texts in translated form, and refer via Bekker identifiers in their 
citations, often without referring to the translator at all (regarded as 
"editor" and not "author" as I just read in a scholarly text !), 
expressing that they mean the intended meaning of the corresponding 
original, approximated by the translation provided.


Since the CRM project is not about absolute precision, but about 
"minimal ontological commitment" in the sense of Thomas Gruber, for the 
purpose of /information integration/, rather than resolution, I maintain 
that we need to model two different senses:


A) the actual intended meaning, which is over thousands of years more 
and more approximated by scholarly commentaries, and


B) the minimal common or approximate meaning, as rendered by several 
good translations.


I would model A) as instance of Information Object, as it gives priority 
to the original wording, implicitly Propositional Object as intended by 
the author, as you correctly stress in your message below,


and B) as E89 Propositional Object only, as E89 is about meaning 
possibly abstract from symbolic form.


The latter sense should be expressed in the example. I propose to talk 
about the


approximate meaning of Met.Г 4.3,1005b 19-20,

and add a comment with translations in 3 languages and the original. I 
currently have a German and two English ones (below) at hand:


“the same thing cannot at the same time belong and also not belong to 
the same thing and in the same respect”
"It is impossible for the same attribute at once to belong and not to 
belong [20] to the same thing and in the same relation;

(Met.Г 4.3,1005b19-20)

Thus stated, users can make up their own mind about the common meaning 
in this example, isn't it?


Would that find your agreement?

Best,

Martin

On 1/10/2024 8:30 AM, George Bruseker wrote:

Dear Martin,

As a scholar of ancient philosophy, I do love Bekker numbers, but I am 
curious why they would be an example of propositional object. They are 
a reference to a particular chunk of text in the original Greek as 
setup in the Bekker edition. As such, I think as a scholar using 
ancient texts, I use it to locate the original Information Object upon 
which an interpretation (formulation of the proposition(s) that we 
think thinker X was making) is based. The exact propositional content 
of that information object is usually the subject of debate rather 
than the object of reference. Did Aristotle mean X or Y in passage 99a 
of the Posterior Analytics, is the usual topic of conversation. If we 
knew the exact propositional content, we'd be golden, but usually that 
is the very topic we want to endlessly swirl around and the Bekker 
number is the pointer for people who can read ancient Greek in order 
to be able to find the original passage, read it, translate it and 
cogitate on what was really meant there (the propositions encoded).


But perhaps you have another use in mind?

 Best,

George

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 7:25 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
 wrote:


Dear All,

I suggest to create an example using Bekker numbers. They
constitute excellent examples of identifiers for propositional
content.

See https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1030408=7468217

[Crm-sig] Example for propositional objects

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I suggest to create an example using Bekker numbers. They constitute 
excellent examples of identifiers for propositional content.


See https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1030408=7468217

--

 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: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

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: link related examples

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

On 12/13/2023 4:27 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:


I think that this is a very good signpost. The only possible 
improvement I can see would need us to number all the examples so we 
can point to exactly which example is being referred to. Not sure that 
this is worth the effort?


Well, I'd say no, someone who cannot spot the matching example, will 
hardly understand the CRM, isn't it?


But some examples, such as the coordinates of Kastoria, have a didactic 
purpose that is rather opaque:


The geometric center "of gravity" of the city is in the lake, rather 
than the built parts. The examples show that centroids cannot be 
compared automatically, because they are different in various resources, 
and there is no concept of the size of the feature to infer that the 
deviation is smaller than the feature size. In contrast, bounding boxes 
could automatically be compared for overlap or inclusion. The current 
city further covers completely previous up to the Roman settlement, and 
was continuously inhabited.


Best,

Marin


Rgds

SdS

Stephen Stead

Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013

ste...@paveprime.com

*From:*Crm-sig  *On Behalf Of *Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig

*Sent:* Wednesday, December 13, 2023 1:12 PM
*To:* crm-sig 
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] New Issue: link related examples

Dear All,

CRM-SIG put a lot of effort in creating related examples for 
properties of the same class:


For instance,

P145:

The implementation of the treaty regulating the termination of 
Greenland membership in EU between EU, Denmark and Greenland 1st 
February 1985 (E86) separated Greenland (E74).


 continues with P146

  The implementation of the treaty regulating the termination of 
Greenland membership in EU between EU, Denmark and Greenland 1^st 
February 1985 (E86) /separated from/ EU (E74).


Could be a comment. There are many such examples making together one 
"frame".

It is very complicated to find these out by browsing!

I propose "[example connects to P146]" and vice versa "[example 
connects to P145]"


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:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  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: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

[Crm-sig] New Issue: link related examples

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

CRM-SIG put a lot of effort in creating related examples for properties 
of the same class:


For instance,

P145:

The implementation of the treaty regulating the termination of Greenland 
membership in EU between EU, Denmark and Greenland 1st February 1985 
(E86) separated Greenland (E74).


 continues with P146

The implementation of the treaty regulating the termination of Greenland 
membership in EU between EU, Denmark and Greenland 1^st February 1985 
(E86) /separated from/ EU (E74).


Could be a comment. There are many such examples making together one 
"frame".

It is very complicated to find these out by browsing!

I propose "[example connects to P146]" and vice versa "[example connects 
to P145]"


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: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

[Crm-sig] Editorial Issue

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

In the version 7.2.2 of the CIDOC CRM definition, we found the following 
editorial errors:


In the Property Hierarchy, the inverse labels of:

P160, P161, P180, P189 are still missing. To be corrected with those in 
the property declarations.


 The label of P133 in the Property Hierarchy and in the declaration of 
E92 is obsolete.

To be corrected with that in the property declaration of P133.


No decision needed.

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: 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

[Crm-sig] Issue: Replace fictitious example

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Dariah Hook proposes a better example for P11:

Delete:

Maria (E21) /participated in /Photographing of Maria (E7). (fictitious)

use instead:

The Beatles (E74) /participated in /Harry Bensonphotographing the 
Beatles in Paris in 1964 (E7).


Reference:

Mitsui, Evan (16 November 2013). "Harry Benson's photos of the Beatles 
sparked career" 
. 
CBC News. Accessed 4 December 2023.


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: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

[Crm-sig] New Issue, missing part of type

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Indeed, I see two characteristic cases:

A) broken surfaces:

This is characteristic for statues, which miss heads or limbs, but also 
for architectural elements. The Roman statues without heads have 
characteristic places where to place the head. There is the reasoning 
that people hardly produced a statue with a broken-off arm in antiquity. 
These parts have not been discrete before being broken of. In other 
cases, there may be traces of mortar or other cement to the connected 
component, or damaged joining features, such as corrupted screw holes etc.


B) If an object is found in a context of /use/, rather than in a 
/factory/, we can assume that it contained all essential components.


I agree with Oeyvind that a part removal is not adequate for a 
deterioration happening when some objects down etc. Therefore I raised 
the issue, because there is no obvious workaround in CRM currently.


The property should be used when there is enough plausibility that the 
object was complete. I do not assume someone went to a battle field with 
a chariot without wheels. Even if, the cases are so marginal they are 
irrelevant for the purpose of the CRM.



See also our paper, in which we analyzed a lot of situations:

DOI:10.1007/3-540-45581-7_31 <https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45581-7_31>

Corpus ID: 46464138
A Metamodel for Part - Whole Relationships for Reasoning on Missing 
Parts and Reconstruction
M. Doerr <https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/M.-Doerr/38587181>, D. 
Plexousakis 
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/D.-Plexousakis/1705358>, C. 
Bekiari <https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/C.-Bekiari/2861757>
Published in International Conference on Conceptual Modeling 
<https://link.springer.com/conference/er er> ER 2001: Conceptual 
Modeling — ER 2001 
<https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/3-540-45581-7> pp 412–425


Best,

Martin


On 10/17/2023 10:33 AM, athinak wrote:

Dear Martin,

maybe I misunderstood, but how can we explicitly know thw 
circumstances of leading to this state, described by the property? 
what I mean is, that this property seems to me related to the 
definition of situations and to inference (how can we assert the 
validity of missing parts? and what about the FOL? can it support it?
It seems useful but isn't it a kind of inference? just a question or 
maybe I am missing something


Athina

On 2023-10-16 22:12, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

In the discussion about typed negative properties, I have the
impression that a property:
"misses part of type" may be utterly useful for finding archaeological
object in a global search,
such as the head or arms of a statue, characteristic elements of
buildings etc.
Admittedly, it poses the question where to stop the non-existence, and
what missing parts would have a chance to be found.
Would a part lost by accident be a part removal? Would that be an
alternative way of documenting missing parts?

Opinions?

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

 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



--

 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

[Crm-sig] New Issue, missing part of type

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

In the discussion about typed negative properties, I have the impression 
that a property:
"misses part of type" may be utterly useful for finding archaeological 
object in a global search,
such as the head or arms of a statue, characteristic elements of 
buildings etc.
Admittedly, it poses the question where to stop the non-existence, and 
what missing parts would have a chance to be found.
Would a part lost by accident be a part removal? Would that be an 
alternative way of documenting missing parts?


Opinions?

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
 
 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

[Crm-sig] Issue 519, use of "preferred identifier" and "current permanent location"

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Since it is on tomorrow's agenda to deprecate or not "preferred 
identifier" and "current permanent location", I'd suggest an e-vote,
if the meeting tends to deprecation, because basically the question 
remains if these are used or not. The latter is a question to a wider 
audience.


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
 
 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

[Crm-sig] Fwd: Issue 576 (about ... entity of type)

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

With respect to issue 576, a specific aboutness, I'd like to keep in mind

(A) to keep the CRMbase small

(B)  fear that the variety in which "aboutness" may occur is even much 
greater than that between an image and what is on it. If we talk about 
texts, we do not encounter the specifics of a photo showing an unknown 
particular, but reference and coreference issues. Image (or voice) 
recognition is cognitively very distinct from text (symbolic form). We 
have, in general, no clear concept in which way the "about an unknown 
instance" may appear in the information object, if not in a Visual Item.


(C) if the distinction is necessary, the referencing symbols can always 
be used to create an instance of "/what was meant/" at this spot of the 
information object, even without further data than the type (or whatever 
else the source stated). If any further reasoning about the dubious 
unknown item is necessary, such an explicit representation is even 
preferable for clarifying the possible identity.


(D) In contrast however, significant amounts of texts refer 
characteristically to series of instances of a particular type, such as 
excavation records and many other archeological publications, geographic 
descriptions, secondary historical literare, etc. These are typically 
*NOT *represented in library catalogues, but very useful. However, I'd 
expect such series to be further characterized by other unity criteria, 
such as area, time people and others. This reminds me of the 
"referential collection" construct, we had discussed in the Europeana 
whitepaper. The need not be in a collection form. E.g. Evliya Celebi, in 
his famous "travel books" systematically refers to types of buildings in 
cities in the Ottoman sphere of influence. For these uses, "about 
instance of type" would again be under-specified.


Therefore, I vote to resolve the issue with a recommendation to make an 
explicit URIs for isolated individuals, and further discuss "sets of 
references with common characteristics".


Opinions?

All the best,

Martin

On 8/18/2023 12:00 AM, Eleni Tsouloucha wrote:


Dear all,


Issue 576 
had been 
postponed by issues 610 
and 
476 
, 
which have almost been resolved. Specifically, as far as 610 is 
concerned, the only thing it determined was to not deprecate P125 on 
the grounds that it's used. It spawned a number of issues (none of 
which settles the question that had been raised by George in 576)



As far as 476 is concerned, it has practically been resolved (the 
property was kept in the 7.2.x branch on the grounds that it's been 
used, some minute details to be worked around).



I think it's time to return to this issue, and determine whether the 
Pxxx about ___ of typeproperties suggested by George will be part of 
CRMbase, (N)TPs or will be dealt through more intricate workarounds



Let me know what you think (and whether this could be discussed at the 
next SIG meeting), by 1 September.


All the best,


--
Eleni Tsouloucha
Philologist - MA Linguistics & Language Technologies
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory - Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)

Address: N. Plastira 100, GR-70013 Heraklion, Grece
email: tsoulo...@isc.forth.gr, eleni.crm@gmail.com
Tel: +30 2810391488



--

 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



--

 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

[Crm-sig] Issue 482 Vulnerability Belief

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Referring to:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M4nOyiRarQ2Qv4eVdmEqAxCx6WUe5WmtzLLos8r23mY/edit

In principle, PR1, PR2 is incompatible with I2, because it replaces the 
Proposition Set by a reification (one property) construct. However, we 
are discussing in Issue 614 the transition from one property to a 
proposition set:


I proposed for 614:
"Finally, observing or assigning a single property (E13) can be 
described as a shortcut to a content model held to be true"Further, 
instead of PR1, we can define a "Vulnerability Proposition Set", 
prescribing general constraints about its content model, which includes 
the assignment of a  etc. to this thing, following the pattern of


"Jxx9 is about provenance of (has provenance claim): E70 Thing" from 
Belief Adoption.



Constraints for content models of Proposition Sets are necessary in 
general, e.g., for defining an "observable situation", we need a list of 
possible properties.


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
 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: P168i defines place shortcut

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

On 10/5/2023 10:35 AM, George Bruseker wrote:

Hi Martin,

On this one continue to disagree. Yes the intention of the statement 
is to say that the instances of this class and their construction are 
meant to be formulated in data standards outside of CRM.
Yes, and we provide interfaces to them. May be this phrase exactly is 
missing in the statement. Similarly, CRMgeo interfaces with the geo 
standards.

The user of CRM absolutely should interpret this and understand it.
Yes, but this does not require the CRM to define it, as RDF does not 
define the xsd values. The user of the CRM should interpret and 
understand a lot more than the CRM.


"And the basics of ontology are that isA states that an instance of a 
subclass is also an instance of its superclass. If the superclass is 
meant to not be interpreted in CRM but be outside its world, then all of 
its subclasses should also not be interpreted within CRM."


I said the opposite. Some primitive values are also *subclasses* of E41 
Appellation. The superclass E41 is interpreted, but the respective 
Primitive Values under it, not further.


would that make sense?

Best,

Martin
Otherwise it would be like saying that some subclasses of temporal 
entity can not be, ontologically, temporal, or some subclasses of 
conceptual object can be, ontologically, other than conceptual. That 
would be a logical contradiction.


Best,

George

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 10:18 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
 wrote:


I think we have an interpretation problem here :

"are not considered elements of the universe of discourse the
CIDOC CRM aims to define and analyse".

This is not a statement what users of the CRM should consider when
they use the CRM. The CRM does not intend to analyse the
Geospatial Standards, but interfaces to them, and recommends their
use. It does not deal with the way computers store real numbers,
integers etc, but interfaces to them and recommends their use.
Exactly as RDF does *not analyze xsd values*, but interfaces to
them and recommends their use. The linking construct in RDF is the
*Literal*. Similarly, CRM defines some highlevel classes, to be
filled with formats others analyze and define. Analyzing a
superclass does not mean to analyze and define the subclasses.

If this sense of the statement is not clear enough, please
reformulate adequately.

Best,

Martin


On 10/3/2023 9:59 AM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

The duality of primitives as being in and out of of the universe
of a discourse is a problem

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 9:45 AM Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig
 wrote:

Okay, last one. I had overlooked P82 "at some time within",
and of course there is also P172 "contains" and P81 "ongoing
throughout". The questions about P171 also apply to P172 /
P81 / P82.

So many possible shortcuts. Was there a reason for not making
E94 Space Primitive a subclass of E53 Place? i.e. is it more
on the side of "Period is a Spacetime Volume" or "Physical
Thing defines but is not a Spacetime Volume"? The E59 scope
note says "The instances of E59 Primitive Value and its
subclasses are not considered elements of the universe of
discourse the CIDOC CRM aims to define and analyse", but with
E94 being a subclass of Appellation this might no longer be
entirely accurate anyway.


> Am 01.10.2023 um 14:09 schrieb Schmidle, Wolfgang via
Crm-sig :
>
> Some additional questions:
>
> P189 and P171:
> E53 Place P171 at some place within E94 Space Primitive
> is a strong shortcut of
> E53 Place P89 falls within E53 Place P168 place is defined
by E94 Space Primitive
>
> Should P171 and the proposed "is approximated by" shortcut
be either both in CRMbase or both in CRMgeo?
>
> Would P171 be called "falls within" if it were introduced now?
>
> Should there be versions of P171 for time and spacetime
volumes? i.e.
> E93 Spacetime Volume P10 falls within SP7 Declarative
Spacetime Volume P169i spacetime volume is defined by E95
Spacetime Primitive
> E52 Time-Span P86 falls within SP10 Declarative Time-Span
P170i time is defined by E61 Time Primitive
>
> P189 and Q11:
> Does P189 indeed represent the same concept as Q11 in
CRMgeo (v1.2)? For example, P189 is marked as reflexive (i.e.
any place approximates itself), which is not possible for Q11
since its domain and range are not the same (Declarative
Place approximates Place).
>
> P189 and P7:
> E4 Period P7 too

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: P168i defines place shortcut

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

I think we have an interpretation problem here :

"are not considered elements of the universe of discourse the CIDOC CRM 
aims to define and analyse".


This is not a statement what users of the CRM should consider when they 
use the CRM. The CRM does not intend to analyse the Geospatial 
Standards, but interfaces to them, and recommends their use. It does not 
deal with the way computers store real numbers, integers etc, but 
interfaces to them and recommends their use. Exactly as RDF does *not 
analyze xsd values*, but interfaces to them and recommends their use. 
The linking construct in RDF is the *Literal*. Similarly, CRM defines 
some highlevel classes, to be filled with formats others analyze and 
define. Analyzing a superclass does not mean to analyze and define the 
subclasses.


If this sense of the statement is not clear enough, please reformulate 
adequately.


Best,

Martin


On 10/3/2023 9:59 AM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
The duality of primitives as being in and out of of the universe of a 
discourse is a problem


On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 9:45 AM Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig 
 wrote:


Okay, last one. I had overlooked P82 "at some time within", and of
course there is also P172 "contains" and P81 "ongoing throughout".
The questions about P171 also apply to P172 / P81 / P82.

So many possible shortcuts. Was there a reason for not making E94
Space Primitive a subclass of E53 Place? i.e. is it more on the
side of "Period is a Spacetime Volume" or "Physical Thing defines
but is not a Spacetime Volume"? The E59 scope note says "The
instances of E59 Primitive Value and its subclasses are not
considered elements of the universe of discourse the CIDOC CRM
aims to define and analyse", but with E94 being a subclass of
Appellation this might no longer be entirely accurate anyway.


> Am 01.10.2023 um 14:09 schrieb Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig
:
>
> Some additional questions:
>
> P189 and P171:
> E53 Place P171 at some place within E94 Space Primitive
> is a strong shortcut of
> E53 Place P89 falls within E53 Place P168 place is defined by
E94 Space Primitive
>
> Should P171 and the proposed "is approximated by" shortcut be
either both in CRMbase or both in CRMgeo?
>
> Would P171 be called "falls within" if it were introduced now?
>
> Should there be versions of P171 for time and spacetime volumes?
i.e.
> E93 Spacetime Volume P10 falls within SP7 Declarative Spacetime
Volume P169i spacetime volume is defined by E95 Spacetime Primitive
> E52 Time-Span P86 falls within SP10 Declarative Time-Span P170i
time is defined by E61 Time Primitive
>
> P189 and Q11:
> Does P189 indeed represent the same concept as Q11 in CRMgeo
(v1.2)? For example, P189 is marked as reflexive (i.e. any place
approximates itself), which is not possible for Q11 since its
domain and range are not the same (Declarative Place approximates
Place).
>
> P189 and P7:
> E4 Period P7 took place at E53 Place
> is an inverse shortcut of
> E4 Period P161 has spatial projection E53 Place P89 falls within
E53 Place
> P7(x,y) ⇒ (∃z) [E53(z) ∧ P161(x,z) ∧ P89(z,y)]
> (leaving out the "same reference system" requirements)
>
> Could one say that it becomes a strong shortcut if we add the
"will to approximate" to the long version? i.e.
> P7(x,y) ⇔ (∃z) [E53(z) ∧ P161(x,z) ∧ P89(z,y) ∧ P189i(z,y)]
>
> This is not far away from Rob's starting point in issue 439
(Approximate Dimensions). In this issue, Martin argues that P189
shouldn't be used when one can establish "falls within". But it
seems to me that
> P89 + P189i = "is approximated from the outside by"
> would work very well together.
>
> Best,
> Wolfgang
>
>
>> Am 26.09.2023 um 11:25 schrieb Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig
:
>>
>> I assume that P189i is the same as Q11i in CRMgeo. Since the
shortcut would be in CRMgeo anyway, would it make sense to define
shortcuts for STVs and Time-Spans in CRMgeo as well? I.e. for
>>
>> E93 Spacetime Volume Q12i is approximated by SP7 Declarative
Spacetime Volume P169i spacetime volume is defined by E95
Spacetime Primitive
>>
>> E52 Time-Span Q13i is approximated by SP10 Declarative
Time-Span P170i time is defined by E61 Time Primitive
>>
>> Best,
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>> Am 25.09.2023 um 11:20 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>>

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: P168i defines place shortcut

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Wolfgang,

Good question! Actually I am confronted with applications with many many 
points approximating places. Normally, we would say, use P171, P172, but 
DO NOT define an approximation by a POINT nearby, if you can do better. 
For legacy data, this is hard to enforce. I regard P171,P172 a 
fundamental good practice for CRMbase. No reason to repeat in CRMgeo 
anything that is (now!) in CRMbase, isn't it?


Best,

Martin

On 10/1/2023 2:09 PM, Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig wrote:

Some additional questions:

P189 and P171:
E53 Place P171 at some place within E94 Space Primitive
is a strong shortcut of
E53 Place P89 falls within E53 Place P168 place is defined by E94 Space 
Primitive

Should P171 and the proposed "is approximated by" shortcut be either both in 
CRMbase or both in CRMgeo?

Would P171 be called "falls within" if it were introduced now?




--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: P168i defines place shortcut

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Wolfgang,

P189 is a superproperty of Q11, because it allows also phenomenal and 
mixed-type places to be used for approximation.


Indeed, if E53 Place P168 place is defined by : E94 Space Primitive, 
then it must be a Declarative Place. Hence, the shortcut


can be the same of "E53 Place Q11i is approximated by: SP6 Declarative 
Place Q10i is defined by : SP5 Geometric Place Expression (= E94 Space 
Primitive)"


I am not sure about the latest updated version of CRMgeo, because these 
are the constructs we harmonized later in CRMbase.


Best,

Martin

On 9/26/2023 11:25 AM, Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig wrote:

I assume that P189i is the same as Q11i in CRMgeo. Since the shortcut would be 
in CRMgeo anyway, would it make sense to define shortcuts for STVs and 
Time-Spans in CRMgeo as well? I.e. for

E93 Spacetime Volume Q12i is approximated by SP7 Declarative Spacetime Volume 
P169i spacetime volume is defined by E95 Spacetime Primitive

E52 Time-Span Q13i is approximated by SP10 Declarative Time-Span P170i time is 
defined by E61 Time Primitive

Best,
Wolfgang



Am 25.09.2023 um 11:20 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig :

Dear All,

I propose a shortcut in CRMgeo for E53 Place P189i is approximated by: E53 
Place P168 place is defined by : E94 Space Primitive,
for obvious practical reasons. It can have the same label.

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

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


___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: P168i defines place shortcut

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Wolfgang,

We define shortcuts only for the very frequent cases. I proposed a 
shortcut for approximating a place by a space primitive, because there 
are millions of such data. We do not propose shortcuts when we regard 
the documenation of the intermediate to be important for data 
integration, such as birth events, in contrast to "birth date" etc.


The Space Primitive and all other primitives has an identity as a 
limited set of internationally used symbols by electronic data devices. 
The same geometric area can be described by many different space 
primitives. Therefore, it is cannot be Isa place, isn't it? We need the 
distinctions if notation and conversions become relevant. Different 
electronic devices support different value ranges.  At some place, we 
need to be pragmatic. If we define an interface from an ontology of 
being in the real world, obeying to FOL, to typical database constructs, 
we necessarily encounter some special hybrids. For instance, 1/3 is a 
number, but does not exits in any primitive value. "are not considered 
elements of the universe of discourse the CIDOC CRM aims to define and 
analyse" does not mean we do not use them.  Making E94 being a subclass 
of Appellation is a minimal statement about their role.


Best,

Martin


On 10/3/2023 9:41 AM, Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig wrote:

Okay, last one. I had overlooked P82 "at some time within", and of course there is also P172 
"contains" and P81 "ongoing throughout". The questions about P171 also apply to P172 / 
P81 / P82.

So many possible shortcuts. Was there a reason for not making E94 Space Primitive a subclass of E53 Place? 
i.e. is it more on the side of "Period is a Spacetime Volume" or "Physical Thing defines but 
is not a Spacetime Volume"? The E59 scope note says "The instances of E59 Primitive Value and its 
subclasses are not considered elements of the universe of discourse the CIDOC CRM aims to define and 
analyse", but with E94 being a subclass of Appellation this might no longer be entirely accurate anyway.





--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: Completing the list of shortcuts in CRMbase

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Agreed with all!

Martin

On 10/4/2023 12:42 PM, Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

P81 "ongoing throughout" and  P82 "at some time within" are strong shortcuts, 
but not yet marked as such:

E52 Time-Span P81 ongoing throughout E61 Time Primitive
E52 Time-Span P86i contains E52 (Declarative) Time-Span P170i time is defined 
by E61 Time Primitive
P81(x,y) ⇔ (∃z) [E52(z) ∧ P86i(x,z) ∧ P170i(z,y)]

E52 Time-Span P82 at some time within E61 Time Primitive
E52 Time-Span P86 falls within E52 (Declarative) Time-Span P170i time is 
defined by E61 Time Primitive
P82(x,y) ⇔ (∃z) [E52(z) ∧ P86(x,z) ∧ P170i(z,y)]

Christian-Emil suggested opening an issue for completing the list of shortcuts 
in CRMbase, and to create a separate issue for the extensions whenever 
necessary.

Best,
Wolfgang


___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 490: how to model a file [HW reminder]

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Daria,

Thank you for this message! I think we all agree with your comment, but 
sadly, people seem to forget that more and more, being blinded by the 
flood of digitally available information.


When I wrote:
"Using an archival identifier for a paper copy, a removable digital 
medium or a URL for a file on a machine, in all cases the maintainers of 
the archive must guarantee that the identifier will be uniquely 
connected with the content. Otherwise, using a URL in a KB is simply 
inadequate."


I did not want to open this discussion. For 500 years the disciples of 
Buddha relied on oral tradition by many people as being more reliable 
than the written form.


Here an anlysis we did many years ago, with an analytical model:

Petraki, M. (2005). Evaluating the reliability of system configurations 
for long term digital preservation 
<http://elocus.lib.uoc.gr/dlib/0/f/d/metadata-dlib-2005petraki_mer.tkl>.  
(pdf <https://publications.ics.forth.gr/_publications/Petraki.pdf>).


But true preservation needs continuous control if the words are still 
understood (as in oral tradition), .
This effort can be done only to a limited set of things, so we need a 
selection of what we want to remember. This requires an understanding of 
our cultures, do we have it?


Isn't it?

Best,

Martin

On 9/17/2023 9:42 AM, Гук Дарья Юрьевна wrote:

Dear all,
beeing out of discussion (too many reasons) I can add a metaphorical 
opinion.
Poem about Gilgamesh is known after clay peaces, broken, copied and 
fixed with adds, and are able to read it only with interpreter. The 
same with any file - machine readable data, wich are fixed phisically 
and accessed only by computer interpretator and electricity. Be sure, 
most part of files even printed has no sence for human. Are you 
interected, where are cleaning lady's rag? Never! Although it's 
ethnography. Conclusion: files exist only for robots.
Copies of video and sound as part of heritage are other thing 
presenting only specific part, but be sure, useless century years 
after creation. Maybe we need caracterize them by durance of use?


With kind regards,
Daria Hookk

*От:* Crm-sig  от имени Martin Doerr via 
Crm-sig 

*Отправлено:* 16 сентября 2023 г. 0:08:46
*Кому:* crm-sig
*Тема:* [Crm-sig] Issue 490: how to model a file [HW reminder]
Dear All,

Let me summarize the discussion about issue 490 between George, 
Christian-Emil and me, to be discussed in the next meeting:


"How to model a file" may be too vague.

There are three aspects:

A) What constructs are needed in the CRM ontologically to refer to the 
unique content of a file.


B) What constructs are needed to refer unambiguously to a resource 
that changes content. This is modeled in CRMpem as "Volatile Dataset", 
and will not be discussed in this issue.


C) How to connect in a knowledge base to a materialized content 
description.


About A):

We take a file (see also Persistent Dataset in CRMpem) in the sense of 
an immaterial E73 Information Object as a unique sequence of symbols 
that can be machine-encoded, regardless what groups of bits constitute 
one of the symbols of interest in this object.

   in the KB: The intended identity can be represented by a URI.

We take a file in the sense of a material copy on a digital medium as 
a kind of "E24 Human-Made Feature", regardless whether it is on a 
*local* installation, in a "*cloud*" cluster of machines, a *LOCKSS* 
federation of copies, or on a *removable* carrier.


    in the KB: We may refer to the material copy by an *external URL*, 
or create an *E52 String *in a KB or within an RDF file, or use a 
platform-internal  "*BLOB mechanism*" with whatever kind of identifier 
the platform refers to the local copy.


Ontologically, it is irrelevant for the intended immaterial content if 
the copy is printed or scribbled on a paper or on a digital medium (or 
even a Morse sound track), as long as the material form  is 
unambiguous wrt to the intended content. Both, paper and digital media 
can have errors. The CIDOC CRM v7.1 can be printed on paper and in 
principle be reentered manually into a file loss-free.


   in the KB: We may refer to a paper copy or a removable medium by an 
archival identifier.


About C)

Using an archival identifier for a paper copy, a removable digital 
medium or a URL for a file on a machine, in all cases the maintainers 
of the archive must guarantee that the identifier will be uniquely 
connected with the content. Otherwise, using a URL in a KB is simply 
inadequate.
The DOI organisation forsees penalties for users that change the 
content of a URL associated with a DOI. There is no other solution.


DOI *automatically redirects* from the DOI URI to the guaranteed URL.

The property P190 has symbolic is used to connect a machine-encodable 
information object to a KB internal string. *S

[Crm-sig] PLease delete last message inGreek!

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

On 9/25/2023 12:28 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Here some corrections:



--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Διπλωματική

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Here some corrections:

Zorbas:

Musical Theme better E90 Symbolic Object, has type: "Musical Theme".

Using P165 with E89 is an error. Irini, please check all properties you 
use if they are applicable!


Two timespans for one event is forbidden: "many to one, necessary 
(1,1:0,n)", see definition! Please learn to understand these definitions.


  Please comment in your work: If you see the need to assign two 
time-spans to one event, you have mistaken two distinct events for one!
      This is foundational to the CRM. Create two events, and a 
relation between them.



Delphos Gown:


  The place of the Moma: This is tricky! The P168 defines a point, the 
Moma building defines an area that can be observed. A place cannot be 
both. Please comment in your work: The space primitive defines a place, 
which is a point, which "P189 approximates" the place of the Moma 
Building. This could be simplified! (I just made a submission to crm-sig).


Sword of Goujian:

An event and a larger period cannot have the same time-span! The Event 
"falls within" the Period, is more precise than that the timespan of the 
event falls within that of the period. If you simply want to say the 
Event "falls within" the Period, you only assign a timespan to the 
Period, not the event, because this confuses your "provenance of 
knowledge", is this clear?, Otherwise, we discuss it in more detail, 
it is foundational to the CRM.


Cheers,


Martin

On 9/25/2023 11:45 AM, Martin Doerr wrote:

Καλησπέρα σας! Μήπως να κάνουμε άλλη τηλεδιάσκεψη τη Πέμπτη απόγευμα;

Μάρτιν

On 9/19/2023 3:03 PM, Sarantos Kapidakis wrote:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1v7vtvNBIijCN6B1vknfIJqgvXEMFZy3a?usp=sharing 



On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:45:29PM +0300, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear All,

Please send me the link to the google page with the thesis text and
examples! I have too many links, costs a lot of time to pick the 
right one

out if it is not in the message

Best,

Martin


On 9/19/2023 12:29 PM, ΣΑΡΑΝΤΟΣ ΚΑΠΙΔΑΚΗΣ wrote:

CIDOC examples




 



Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer, mobile app or room device
Click here to join the meeting 



Meeting ID: 338 102 176 07
Passcode: mWagBT
Download Teams
 | 
Join on

the web 
Learn More  | Meeting options 



 



ΣΑΡΑΝΤΟΣ ΚΑΠΙΔΑΚΗΣ has invited you to Διπλωματική
Title: Διπλωματική
Location: Microsoft Teams Meeting
When: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:00 PM – 8:30 PM




Organizer:
ΣΑΡΑΝΤΟΣ ΚΑΠΙΔΑΚΗΣ 
Description: CIDOC examples



 


Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer, mobile app or room device
Click here to join the 
meeting

Meeting ID: 338 102 176 07
Passcode: mWagBT
Download
Teams |
Join on the
web
Learn More | Meeting 
options 

 






Attendees:

  *
 ΣΠΥΡΙΔΑΚΗ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ 
  *
 ΕΜΜΑΝΟΥΗΛ ΠΕΠΟΝΑΚΗΣ 
  *
 mar...@ics.forth.gr 






--

  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






--

 Dr. Martin Doerr
  
 Honorary Head of the

 Center for Cultural Informatics
 
 Information Systems Laboratory

 Institute of Computer Science
 Foundation for 

[Crm-sig] Issue: P168i defines place shortcut

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I propose a shortcut in CRMgeo for E53 Place P189i is approximated by: 
E53 Place P168 place is defined by : E94 Space Primitive,

for obvious practical reasons. It can have the same label.

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
 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Urgent: status of CRMinf, CRMsci, CRMtex, CRMdig, CRMba, CRMsoc

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Christian-Emil,

To my understanding:

CRMarchaeo: major consolidation with version 7.1 finished in version 2.0 
(draft), declaration of new official version pending.
CRMinf: major revision of "belief adoption" finished, interface with 
CRMtex finished (for reading material texts), reformatting to new 
standard templates and declaration of new

   official version pending.
CRMsci: consolidation with version 7.1 finished, stable version 2.0, RDF 
available, working on observation and measurement of /relations between 
multiple objects/ (major competitive standards do not model such 
relations!).
CRMtex: consolidation with version 7.1 finished, stable version 2.0. 
Interfacing with CRMinf for citation and content interpretation.

CRMdig: review started, no news
CRMpem (digital services): review started

CRMinfluence is not yet proposed as a recommended extension. It is used 
in project work, and may become a potential part of CRMsoc or model on 
its own. Too early to report. Similarly, activity model, business 
provisions and obligations.


CRMsoc: no news. consolidation of conflicting proposals pending.

Please correct, enrich!

Best,

Martin

On 9/23/2023 11:23 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:



Dear all,

I am compiling the crm sig report for 2023 to be presented at the 
CIDOC AGM. In the 2022 report the status of the models where described 
as shown below. I need updated information by Monday evening. For the 
models I don't get any formation about, I will just put under the 
heading  "Nothing new to report in 2023".



Also, the draft model CRMInfluence is brand new and is just a draft. 
THe largest problem is the term breaking the rule about nice and short 
names.



Best,

Christian-Emil

•General maintenance of
–CRMarcheo(stable)
–CRMinf(working on model for citations, interfacing with CRMtex)
–CRMsci(working on aspects of observation)
•Development of draft models
–CRMtex
•is widely consolidated, but still some scope notes, quantifiers etc. 
missing

–CRMdig
•reviewstarted
–CRMba
•interested teams wanted
–CRMsoc

What is the current status?


Best,

Christian-Emil


___
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

[Crm-sig] ISSUE 614: previously (Re: New Issue (if not hidden in 645): Content of Proposition Set)

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I made a mistake with the Issue number: The below message is actually a 
proposal for issue 614! So far, it has been formulated as:


"Some ideas:

 * An Attribute Assignment essentially talks about a single property
   instance, which forms a parallel to pointing to a named graph that
   contains one property instance.
 * I1 Argumentation which results in an instance of I2 Belief cannot be
   a subclass of E13.
 * There is also a problem with S4 Observation if the reification
   construct deals with more than one property simultaneously (what is
   now referred to as Situation).
 * The CRM set of properties that are equivalent to a named graph can
   be represented as a set of propositions and the connection between
   them in FOL. One can always name that and say that the predicate “X”
   stands for a proposition, in CRM an instance of E89. On the other
   hand, the scope note of I4 Proposition Set explicitly refers to
   binary propositions and formal ontology concepts, which seems too
   restrictive. Logical constructs do not specify the order or mode of
   the logical system the statements are expressed in. This could yield
   propositions that are incompatible with the CRM. The scope note
   needs redrafting.
 * The idea is that CRMinf can be connected to a CRM compatible
   knowledge base through such statements. As CRMinf stands now, it
   seems that many things that we regard as premises and conclusions
   won’t be formulated in properties that have been defined in a formal
   ontology. In general, the scope of CRMinf should be broader than
   what can now be expressed. The reference to name graphs should
   explicitly only leave room for named graphs that contain 1+ property
   instances only (rather than instances of properties and classes or
   just the one property instance permitted by E13).
 * If there is any formalization in FOL that can be used to declare the
   E13 reification of a single property as a specific case of a named
   graph, it would be interesting to look at it. "

I hence reformulate:

We need a connection of an I4 Proposition Set (represented in a KB via a 
URI) to a content model.


If we follow the *logic of P190*, we can connect the proposition set to 
a materialized copy of an information object. The latter, in contrast to 
P190, will not be interpreted as representing an immaterial symbolic 
form of a certain symbolic level, *but* as representing an *immaterial 
propositional form (*see examples for E89 Propositional Object). This 
requires the latter to be either a set of statements in a KR language, 
*OR *in sufficiently unambiguous textual form (in the context and for 
the purpose of reference).


We need 3 kinds of links: To E52 String, to a symbolic object, and to an 
external file, be it in RDF or clear text.


I propose "Jxx1,2,3 has model representation (represents model of): E52 
String / E73 Information Object / E24 Human-Made Feature


Jxx2 would be used for KR file contents, but also unambiguous texts, (P2 
has type, such as “the Nebra Sky Disc dates to the Early Bronze Age” 
(Pernicka et al. 2020)"). Ontologically, *the  "{}"* connecting a URI in 
TRIG with a Named Graph corresponds to the Jxx2 link.


Jxx3 may point to a URL or archival identifier. *Jxx3 is a **shortcut* 
of Jxx2 - Pxxx has representative copy.


An instance of I4 Proposition Set should be regarded to be *neutral to 
*the relationship to reality, as any Information Object.


The *relationship to reality* is determined *by the link* using the 
proposition set:


a) In the context of I2 Belief, the belief value of "TRUE" means "real", 
*if* the propositions can be related to reality (i.e., are about real 
world items). "FALSE" means at least one of the propositions in the set 
are regarded to be not real. *NOTE *that in a set of inconsistent 
propositions, the /false one may not be known/!
Belief values expressing *possibility or probability* mean "possibly 
real" *if* the propositions can be related to reality.


b) In the context of observable situations, the link between the 
observation activity and the situation implies the degree of reality 
assumed. It makes sense to observe that a situation did not hold (in its 
specified area and time).


c) Only proposition set held to be true by the maintainers of a KB can 
be introduced as Named Graphs, because they become part of the stated 
knowledge.


d) Proposition Sets held to be possibly true by the maintainers of a KB 
can be introduced as Named Graphs, if the operation of the KB foresees 
filtering by provenance and likelihood. In this case, Named Graphs are 
particularly*effective*.


e) implementation rule/ constraints for typing Named Graph URIs are 
required.


e) Finally, observing or assigning a single property (E13) can be 
described as a shortcut to a content model held to be true


*I propose to decide*, if this is the way to go forward, and then

   A) Spell out the properties
  B) Adjust scope notes of I4, 

[Crm-sig] Issue 490: how to model a file [HW reminder]

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Let me summarize the discussion about issue 490 between George, 
Christian-Emil and me, to be discussed in the next meeting:


"How to model a file" may be too vague.

There are three aspects:

A) What constructs are needed in the CRM ontologically to refer to the 
unique content of a file.


B) What constructs are needed to refer unambiguously to a resource that 
changes content. This is modeled in CRMpem as "Volatile Dataset", and 
will not be discussed in this issue.


C) How to connect in a knowledge base to a materialized content description.

About A):

We take a file (see also Persistent Dataset in CRMpem) in the sense of 
an immaterial E73 Information Object as a unique sequence of symbols 
that can be machine-encoded, regardless what groups of bits constitute 
one of the symbols of interest in this object.

   in the KB: The intended identity can be represented by a URI.

We take a file in the sense of a material copy on a digital medium as a 
kind of "E24 Human-Made Feature", regardless whether it is on a *local* 
installation, in a "*cloud*" cluster of machines, a *LOCKSS* federation 
of copies, or on a *removable* carrier.


    in the KB: We may refer to the material copy by an *external URL*, 
or create an *E52 String *in a KB or within an RDF file, or use a 
platform-internal  "*BLOB mechanism*" with whatever kind of identifier 
the platform refers to the local copy.


Ontologically, it is irrelevant for the intended immaterial content if 
the copy is printed or scribbled on a paper or on a digital medium (or 
even a Morse sound track), as long as the material form  is unambiguous 
wrt to the intended content. Both, paper and digital media can have 
errors. The CIDOC CRM v7.1 can be printed on paper and in principle be 
reentered manually into a file loss-free.


   in the KB: We may refer to a paper copy or a removable medium by an 
archival identifier.


About C)

Using an archival identifier for a paper copy, a removable digital 
medium or a URL for a file on a machine, in all cases the maintainers of 
the archive must guarantee that the identifier will be uniquely 
connected with the content. Otherwise, using a URL in a KB is simply 
inadequate.
The DOI organisation forsees penalties for users that change the content 
of a URL associated with a DOI. There is no other solution.


DOI *automatically redirects* from the DOI URI to the guaranteed URL.

The property P190 has symbolic is used to connect a machine-encodable 
information object to a KB internal string. *Similarly*, we want to 
refer to the content of an information object via an *external* digital 
or not copy, via a *URL or archival identifier*. Therefore we propose 
the following property:


**New proposal:**

*Pxxx has representative copy*

Domain:

E90 Symbolic Object

Range:

E25 Human-Made Feature

Subproperty of:

E90 Symbolic Object. P128i is carried by (carries): E18 Physical Thing

Quantification:

many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of E90 Symbolic Object with a 
complete, identifying representation of its content in the form of a 
sufficiently readable instance of E25 Human-Made Feature, including, in 
particular, representations on electronic media, regardless whether they 
reside internally in clusters of electronic machines, such as in 
so-called cloud services, or on removable media.


This property only applies to instances of E73 Information Object that 
can completely be represented by discrete symbols, in contrast to 
analogue information. The representing object may be more specific than 
the symbolic level defining the identity condition of the represented. 
This depends on the type of the information object represented. For 
instance, if a text has type "Sequence of Modern Greek characters and 
punctuation marks", it may be represented in a formatted file with 
particular fonts on a particular machine, meaning however only the 
sequence of Greek letters. Any additional analogue elements contained in 
the representing object will not regarded to be part of the represented.


As another example, if the represented object has type "English words 
sequence", American English or British English spelling variants may be 
chosen to represent the English word "colour" without defining a 
different symbolic object.


In a knowledge base, typically, the represented object will appear as a 
URI without a corresponding file, whereas the representing one may 
appear by the URL of a binary encoded file existing outside the 
knowledge base proper, or by the archival identifier of a paper edition. 
A URL for identifying the copy itself in a knowledge base should only be 
used as long as the providers support the persistence of that copy under 
this URL, as it is current practice for "Linked Open Data". Associating 
the referred copy with a checksum in the knowledge base may help 
safeguarding the maintainers against unexpected change of content under 
this URL. If more 

[Crm-sig] Issue 635 (property quantifier mismatches) and P191

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Regarding as last item of issue 635 the property /P191 had duration://
/
Issue 559 was resolved as:

"In case the instance of S15 Observable Entity is more specifically an 
instance of E18 Physical Thing, using the property O12 has dimension (is 
dimension of) is equivalent to using the property P43 has dimension (is 
dimension of). In other words, using the one implies the other."


Sadly, P43 has quantification"one to many, dependent (0,n:1,1)", but we 
use O12 now for relative dimensions between multiple things  in CRMsci, 
AND we use Dimension in /P191 had duration (was duration of)/ from a 
Timespan, which is not an instance of E70 Thing, with quantification 
"one to one (1,1:1,1) ". Note that P191 is NOT a subproperty of P43, but 
E54 Dimension pertains to both.


It appears to me that P43 should have quantification"many to many 
(0,n:0,n)" ,

and P191 should have quantification"one to one (1,1:0,1)" ,

but this leaves P43 without the important semantics of dependency.

Taking relative dimensions into account, it should be clarified that an 
instance of E54 Dimension is dependent on the combination of references 
to it.

This is a task for an FOL or so, isn't it?

Otherwise, we would need to specialize E54 in CRMbase, not really nice.


Opinions?


Best,

Martin


 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Issue 635 (property quantifier mismatches)
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0300
From:   Eleni Tsouloucha 
To: 	Wolfgang Schmidle , Martin Doerr 


CC: Chryssoula Bekiari 



Dear both,


The correct property quantification for /P191 had duration/ has not been 
determined yet. Have you resolved this? If yes, should we call an evote 
or would you rather we discussed it at the SIG?


Best,

--
Eleni Tsouloucha
Philologist - MA Linguistics & Language Technologies
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory - Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)

Address: N. Plastira 100, GR-70013 Heraklion, Grece
email: tsoulo...@isc.forth.gr, eleni.crm@gmail.com
Tel: +30 2810391488

--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 579 (how to model the focus or view of an observation)

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Thanasi, all,

I think modeling a view direction is an  overspecialization. I now 
believe for purposes of information integration, the question is to 
describe an area covered by an observation. specific directions etc. 
should be placed in an extended description. The more general question 
to specify an observed area, as in archaeological surveys, needs to be 
modeled indeed. This is neither an observed situation, nor a measurement 
of dimensions. Also, we need to understand which kinds of observation 
pertain to areas (typically optical, radar).


This should be discussed!

Best,

Martin

On 8/18/2023 12:00 AM, Eleni Tsouloucha wrote:


Dear Martin, all,


According to the decision of the 53rd SIG meeting (May 2022), issue 
579 
was 
on hold until we had resolved 583 
(theorizing 
about dimensions of spatiotemporal distances btw instances of S15 
Observable Entity).



Now that 583 is done and the new classes & properties have been 
introduced in CRMsci (V2.1), do we go back to this issue?



Are you interested in reviving it in time for the next SIG meeting? If 
you don’t have anything to report by then but are still interested in 
pursuing this line of work it’s still OK, maybe we could freshen 
everyone’s memory and then ask for volunteers to work on it.





--

 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

[Crm-sig] New Issue (if not hidden in 645): Content of Proposition Set

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I suggest to discuss the meaning of I4 Proposition Set, also related to 
issue 550, 510, 610


Two problems:

A) the content model. If we follow the *logic of P190*, an I4 
Proposition Set should be represented by a URI and a content model, 
which could be implemented as Named Graph in a KB.
If we take an I4 as a Propositional Object, we would still need a 
symbolic form, which would need a representative copy (or P190).


B) If we take an I4 as *fitting  potentially the reality* under 
discourse, or only as a "possible world" being discussed, we need to 
clarify this role. Using I2 Belief, we relate the Proposition Set to be 
"true" or "false". We need to clarify, if "true" means "real", if the 
propositions can be related to reality. Similarly, we need to clarify, 
if an I11 Situation, as a special case, is meant to be discussed as 
statements only, or, if "observed", to *exist *in reality. We need to 
interpret the link to an observation is implying its reality or not.
This is particularly interesting if we observe an area and state it does 
NOT contain X.


C) We should clarify how we may refer to Proposition Sets with a human 
readable text, rather than a CRM compatible RDF model.


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
 
 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

[Crm-sig] HW issue 556

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Some years ago we analyzed place types from different gazetteers, with 
the focus on  such phenomena with a relevantspatiotemporal evolution:


I have made the following distinctions by abstracting from the 
Alexandria Gazetteer place types, according to the kind of phenomena 
that are responsible for their definition and identity and for avoiding 
possible polysemy of the same term/name. Similar place types appear in 
the TGN. Place types in Geonames should also be considered. An early 
version of place types from the INSPIRE standard appeared not to be as good.


   A)Distinct spaces defined by geomorphological forms (continents,
   islands, mountain ranges, water bodies, vulcanos)

   B)Distinct habitats defined by life form (kinds of vegetation etc.)

   C)Coherent, evolving human-maintained spaces (settlements, roads,
   areas formed by agriculture or other exploiation)

   D)Spaces defined by inhabitation/stay of a specific cultural group
   of people (town population, tribe, language group)

   E)Areas determined by execution of political power (Nation, country,
   administrative unit, protection zone)

   F)Possibly evolving areas defined by theoretical declaration
   motivated by scientific, social or political interests.

Wheras A), F) may characterize just spacetime volumes, B) through E) may 
characterize E4 Periods in the narrower sense.


It seems that only very few high-level abstractions are necessary to 
make a term like "Greece" or "Rome" unambiguous. Therefore the above may 
lead to a minimal vocabulary recommended by the CRM for E4 Period and 
Spacetime Volume


I attach the Alexandria terms.

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
 
 Vox:+30(2810)391625
 Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
 Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl


alexandria gazetteer.xlsx
Description: MS-Excel 2007 spreadsheet
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] HW Issue 630: redraft the scope note of P38 deassigned

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

   Dear All,

   Here my proposal:

   OLD:

   P38 deassigned (was deassigned by)

   Domain:

   E15 <#m_2848461322383461192__toc7601> Identifier Assignment

   Range:

   E42 <#m_2848461322383461192__toc8076> Identifier

   Subproperty of:

   E13 <#m_2848461322383461192__toc7561> Attribute Assignment. P141
   <#m_2848461322383461192__toc11036> assigned (was assigned by): E1
   <#m_2848461322383461192__toc7281> CRM Entity

   Quantification:

   many to many (0,n:0,n)

   Scope Note:

   This property records the identifier that was deassigned from an
   instance of E1 CRM Entity.

   De-assignment of an identifier may be necessary when an item is
   taken out of an inventory, a new numbering system is introduced or
   items are merged or split up.

   The same identifier may be deassigned on more than one occasion.

   Examples:

  The identifier assignment on 31st July 2001 of the silver cup
   OXCMS:2001.1.32 (E15) deassigned “232” (E42). (fictitious)

   NEW

   P38 deassigned (was deassigned by)

   Domain:

   E15 <#m_2848461322383461192__toc7601> Identifier Assignment

   Range:

   E42 <#m_2848461322383461192__toc8076> Identifier

   Subproperty of:

   E13 <#m_2848461322383461192__toc7561> Attribute Assignment. P141
   <#m_2848461322383461192__toc11036> assigned (was assigned by): E1
   <#m_2848461322383461192__toc7281> CRM Entity

   Quantification:

   many to many (0,n:0,n)

   Scope Note:

   This property associates an instance of E42 Identifier that was
   deassigned from an instance of E1 CRM Entity by an instance of E15
   Identifier Assignment.

   De-assignment of an identifier means that the actor, typically an
   organisation, carrying out the respective instance of E15 Identifier
   Assignment, has decided no more to use the respective identifier for
   an item which has been in its possession or was referred to in a
   context under the actor’s control. Reasons to do so may be, besides
   others, when an item is taken out of an inventory, items are merged
   or split up in a collection, an object is acquired under reference
   to the identifier of the giving institution or a new numbering
   system is introduced. Depending on such cases, de-assignment may be
   associated with the assignment of a new identifier (P37 assigned
   (was assigned by)) in the same instance of E15 Identifier Assignment.

   The same identifier may be deassigned on more than one occasion.

   Examples:

  The identifier assignment on 31st July 2001 of the silver cup
   OXCMS:2001.1.32 (E15) deassigned “232” (E42). (fictitious)

 

   Improvements?

   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
 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 615 (scope note of E13 Attribute Assignment)

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I propose to *close* issue 615 by e-vote. The new text for E13 Attribute 
assignment has been approved already.  Trailing an issue into another 
entity is not good practice, but to answer the question:


*As a rule*, multiple properties of a superclass should not be 
specialized altogether by analogy. Properties are and must be 
specialized *if and* *only if* they convey a more specific meaning than 
the superproperty of the superclass in the context of the subclass. 
Obviously, there is nothing you can say about an entity that enables it 
to have an Identifier assigned and not only an Appellation. Conversely, 
there should exist at least one entity that, by its nature, cannot be 
assigned an identifier to.


This rule, even though general KR, may be worthwhile to be documented as 
another *ISSUE*. We had more frequently cases in CRM extensions, were 
properties were not specialized but should have been.


Best,

Martin

On 8/18/2023 12:00 AM, Eleni Tsouloucha wrote:


Dear all,


Back in Luxembourg, the SIG pondered on the lack of subproperty for 
P140 assigned attribute tothat is specific to E15 Identifier 
Assignment(unlike the situation with P141 assigned, for which there 
exists a subproperty that is particular to E15, namely P37 assigned) 
and did not conclude as to what had motivated this decision.



At the time we had said that all relevant discussions would continue 
in the thread for issue 615 
, 
but we have not formally assigned anyone to do the HW. Would you be 
interested? If yes, is it something that you feel can be done in time 
for the next SIG meeting?


Either way, please let me know by 1 September.


All the best,


--
Eleni Tsouloucha
Philologist - MA Linguistics & Language Technologies
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory - Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)

Address: N. Plastira 100, GR-70013 Heraklion, Grece
email: tsoulo...@isc.forth.gr, eleni.crm@gmail.com
Tel: +30 2810391488



--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] E-VOTE: LRMoo R10 is member of (has member)

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

YES!

Martin

On 7/13/2023 1:20 AM, Pat Riva via Crm-sig wrote:

Hello all,

I am calling for an e-vote relating to LRMoo. Please vote on the list 
by *July 26th*.


Background: At the end of SIG meeting #55 in May 2023 in Heraklion, 
the LRMoo WG presented a sketch of a new approach to R10 after the 
proposal made at the meeting 
 
was considered insufficient. This was received with interest but there 
was not time to discuss a full proposal.


*This e-vote is to approve the redefinition of R10, and the 
consequences on R67 (which was originally a subproperty of R10).*


Please see the proposed new text in this Google doc (E-vote: R10 
).


Thanks,
Pat

Pat Riva

Interim University Librarian / Bibliothécaire en chef par intérim

Concordia University / Université Concordia

1455 de Maisonneuve West, LB-331

Montréal, Québec H3G 1M8

Canada

pat.r...@concordia.ca 


___
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

[Crm-sig] CRM applications

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

These excellent implementations have not become so widely known:

Eero Hyvönen: *How to Create a National Cross-domain Ontology and Linked 
Data Infrastructure and Use It on the Semantic Web 
*. 
2023. Semantic Webjournal,forth-coming, . bib 
pdf 
link 



Eero Hyvönen: *Digital Humanities on the Semantic Web: Sampo Model and 
Portal Series 
*. 
Semantic Webjournal, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 729-744, IOS Press, 2023. bib 
pdf 
link 



Many of the "Sampos" use CIDOC CRM -based data models.

All the 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
 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Statements about Statements.

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I have noted all your declarations of interest in this discussion! Next 
week, I'll set up an initial google document open to all members of this 
mailing list. I'll keep the discussions to those interested until we 
have a basic agreement about the document.


See also: 
https://enterprise-knowledge.com/rdf-what-is-it-and-why-do-i-need-it/


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
 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Statements about Statements.

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

You are all welcome!

I'll send you soon an outline of what I have in mind.

All the best,

Martin

n 5/14/2023 10:55 PM, Dominic Oldman wrote:

Hi Martin,

I would like to be involved.

Thanks,

Dominic



On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 19:34, Martin Doerr  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
 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  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 uncert

[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Statements about Statements.

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

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 
 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  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 g

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

On 5/12/2023 7:53 AM, Wolfgang Schmidle wrote:

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your explanations, and sorry that I cannot join the discussion of 
this issue today.
I think my point was that your formalisation is for "directly triggered", whereas the flood example 
suggests that "triggered" can also be used in the sense of "eventually triggered". Like 
the movements of the first and last ball in Newton's cradle, where there is no spatiotemporal overlap between 
the triggering and triggered event (and also no change of the kind of processes, and if there is sustained 
tension in this target system then virtually any system is in sustained tension). But of course Newton's 
cradle is a somewhat theoretical example, and if it is obvious to any expert that the flood example fits the 
scope note then so be it.

Hi Wolfgang,

You are welcome! Of course, the distinction between "triggers" and a 
more general causal chain is a bit tricky. Note however, that the flood 
waters (I assume) have penetrated into the library, as such, from a 
forensic point of view, substance of the triggering event is directly 
involved in the effect. In that sense, it is not as indirect as your 
example above. Landslides, structures breaking and other sudden events, 
on the other side, may in principle start without a trigger, just by 
gradually passing over the threshhold of stability by continued 
environmental impacts.


Nothing is obvious: Each model is an answer to a question, and there are 
no models without questions.


Taking the point of view that CRMsci is still at a level of information 
integration and cross-resource search, I take the implicit questions to 
be to understand risks, quantitatively, and to understand effects of 
such kinds of events. Possibly also, connecting an individual object to 
its presence at a certain time and place in the past, for whatever 
related reasoning. Conservation experts please critisize my view here! 
For this purpose, the level of detail I have defended would be adequate.


If you want to make a model of the process details from the flood water 
entering a building until the effects on the books, one would first 
select the material with the above questions, ask for detailed analyses 
as they may exist, and then enter another research process locally with 
different models and tools, going into physical-chemical-biological 
interactions. At least, this is how I perceive the research worklfow.


Typical triggering is, of course, pressing the button of a camera, etc. 
substantial for interacting with mechanical and electronic devices. A 
delay detonator may put a longer time between the final effect and the 
starting of the device, but the device ticking can be regarded as part 
of the triggered process.


All the best,

Martin


Best,
Wolfgang



Am 30.04.2023 um 17:56 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig :

Dear Wolfgang,

Your questions well-taken, but please do not seek a logical surrogate of 
reality. It does not exist. The logic can be not more than an overlay, 
approximating and simplifying reality, in more detail:


On 4/21/2023 1:59 PM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:
Here's a diff:

* label:
OLD   O13 triggers (is triggered by)
NEW   O13 triggered (was triggered by)
(in the examples it was already called "triggered" rather than "triggers")

* scope note:
Part 1 is unchanged:
This property associates an instance of E5 Event that triggers another instance 
of E5 Event with the latter. It identifies the interaction between events: an 
event can activate (trigger) other events in a target system that is in a 
situation of sustained tension, such as a trap or an unstable mountain slope 
giving way to a land slide after a rain or earthquake.

Part 2:
OLD   In that sense the triggering event is interpreted as a cause. However, 
the association of the two events is based on their temporal proximity, with 
the triggering event ending when the triggered event starts.

NEW   The distinction of the triggering event from the triggered one lies in 
their difference of nature: The starting of the triggered event is the result 
of an interaction of constituents with the triggering one, but not a 
continuation of the kinds of processes of the latter. Therefore the triggering 
event must spatiotemporally overlap with the initial time and area of the 
triggered event, and the spreading out of the subsequent phenomena must 
initiate from this area and time and not from multiple independent areas.

* FOL:
O13(x,y) ⇒ P182(x,y) removed

(Domain, range, quantification, examples are unchanged)


About the changes:

Scope note part 2: If there needs to be an interaction of constituents and thus 
a spatiotemporal overlap, then I am not sure I understand the 1966 flood 
example. There is an overlap between the flood and a book getting wet and an 
overlap between a book being wet as a result and the growing of the mould, but 
is there an obvious in

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

e 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
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

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 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

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 implemen

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

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



--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

rm-sig
 wrote:


Perhaps for the first time, I agree with Martin and not George!

The PC classes are part of the ontological layer -- we don't
say that classes or properties are descendants of E1. Or PC
classes are T box (terminology) and not A box (assertions
using that terminology).
(See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abox)

I can see, however, that it would be useful to be able to
refer to assertions in CRMInf and perhaps in Activity
templates ... but then those assertions _are_ A box - the are
the subject of the discourse, not the language in which the
discourse is taking place.  We have Attribute Assignment to
talk about important activities that assert relationships or
properties. And if we don't want to go to that layer of A box
layer reification, then we have the partitioning pattern --
to assert a role of a particular individual in an activity,
we can identify the part of that activity that the person
carried out and assert a role classification on it via
P2_has_type.

Rob


    On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:44 AM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
 wrote:

Dear All,

I don't think it is correct to make the PC classes
entities. Even though formally an RDF class could be
regarded as an entity, ontologically we distinguish
entities and relationships. The E-R paradigm makes this
distinction also formally clear. We model the properties
with .1 properties in FOL as n-ary relationships, and not
as individuals.

Making the PC classes CRM Entities is inconsistent with
the FOL definition, which is the proper formalization.
In other words, we would make a workaround for a missing
feature in RDFS an ontological argument. We are again in
the discussion to take RDFS as the definition of the CRM,
and not as an implementation.

As a first step, we could introduce an "E0 CRM Relation",
which would have as instances all properties and the PC
classes. The ontological distinction between relations
and entities is fundamental to the methodology of
ontological analysis.

As a second step, we can start to investigate to which
degree PC classes qualify as ontological individuals in
their own right. If we start declaring a priori all PC
classes as entities, we have later to justify and remove
all those that are relations in the true sense.  For
instance, I cannot imagine the "being part of" a Physical
Object for some time to become an entity, because it
needs a timespan.

Best,

Martin

On 5/8/2023 12:54 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Hi all,

I would argue that the safest thing to do is to make the
PCs a subclass of E1 and then see where we go from
there. I agree with Martin that it can't be an
information object (because everything would be then)
but I imagine we would have a debate about what each .1
actually ontologically is. What is certain is that by
virtue of the fact of being something said in the
universe of CIDOC CRM it is something sayable /
mentionable. This is what E1 gives us, the most vague
point of an object that can be pointed to and named,
possibly classified. The problem is right now that we
have something that is sayable in CIDOC CRM (PCxxx) but
it is not referenceable. But this is a logical
contradiction. Everything that can be said can be
referenced and PCxxx can definitely be said.

For example, if I say that Bob was involved in the
Production of Mona Lisa as Creator then this is
something said / stated that is important, that has a
real world referent, which has a definite meaning which
is true or false etc. Ergo, it requires provenance. The
basic mechanism for provenance in CRMbase is E13 and
indicates that there was an agency behind something
being asserted of something else.

Here the thing we want to talk about is the role and the
role IS an instance of PC14. It's already an instance of
a class so it should be referenceable. (Also one might
like to put a bibliography for people who thought that
Bob was Creator of Mona Lisa etc.)

So I would go exactly for Paulos' modelling but with
this change:

:painting_sistine_chapel
crm:P01i_is_domain_of
   

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

 of A box layer reification, then we
have the partitioning pattern -- to assert a role of a particular
individual in an activity, we can identify the part of that
activity that the person carried out and assert a role
classification on it via P2_has_type.

Rob


On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:44 AM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
 wrote:

Dear All,

I don't think it is correct to make the PC classes entities.
Even though formally an RDF class could be regarded as an
entity, ontologically we distinguish entities and
relationships. The E-R paradigm makes this distinction also
formally clear. We model the properties with .1 properties in
FOL as n-ary relationships, and not as individuals.

Making the PC classes CRM Entities is inconsistent with the
FOL definition, which is the proper formalization.
In other words, we would make a workaround for a missing
feature in RDFS an ontological argument. We are again in the
discussion to take RDFS as the definition of the CRM, and not
as an implementation.

As a first step, we could introduce an "E0 CRM Relation",
which would have as instances all properties and the PC
classes. The ontological distinction between relations and
entities is fundamental to the methodology of ontological
analysis.

As a second step, we can start to investigate to which degree
PC classes qualify as ontological individuals in their own
right. If we start declaring a priori all PC classes as
entities, we have later to justify and remove all those that
are relations in the true sense.  For instance, I cannot
imagine the "being part of" a Physical Object for some time to
become an entity, because it needs a timespan.

Best,

Martin

On 5/8/2023 12:54 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Hi all,

I would argue that the safest thing to do is to make the PCs
a subclass of E1 and then see where we go from there. I agree
with Martin that it can't be an information object (because
everything would be then) but I imagine we would have a
debate about what each .1 actually ontologically is. What is
certain is that by virtue of the fact of being something said
in the universe of CIDOC CRM it is something sayable /
mentionable. This is what E1 gives us, the most vague point
of an object that can be pointed to and named, possibly
classified. The problem is right now that we have something
that is sayable in CIDOC CRM (PCxxx) but it is not
referenceable. But this is a logical contradiction.
Everything that can be said can be referenced and PCxxx can
definitely be said.

For example, if I say that Bob was involved in the Production
of Mona Lisa as Creator then this is something said / stated
that is important, that has a real world referent, which has
a definite meaning which is true or false etc. Ergo, it
requires provenance. The basic mechanism for provenance in
CRMbase is E13 and indicates that there was an agency behind
something being asserted of something else.

Here the thing we want to talk about is the role and the role
IS an instance of PC14. It's already an instance of a class
so it should be referenceable. (Also one might like to put a
bibliography for people who thought that Bob was Creator of
Mona Lisa etc.)

So I would go exactly for Paulos' modelling but with this change:

:painting_sistine_chapel
crm:P01i_is_domain_of
:role_of_michaelangeo_in_sistene_chapel_project

:role_of_michaelangeo_in_sistene_chapel_project
   a crm:PC14_carried_out_by ;
   crm:P02_has_range :Michelangelo  ;
   crm:P14.1_in_the_role_of  :master_craftsman .
:attrAssign1
   a crm:E13_Attribute_Assignment ;
   crm:P140_assigned_attribute_to
:role_of_michaelangeo_in_sistene_chapel_project
   ... ... ...


On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 10:42 AM athinak
 wrote:

Dear George, all,

  I am not sure that the class PC0_Typed_CRM_Property
should be a
subclass of E1. In my understanding, this class implies a
situation
concluded in an epistemological context. I am also not
sure if the
provenance we are looking for in this set of statements
is a kind of
E13. I am just wondering.

BRs,
Athina


  On 2023-03-29 16:36, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> When using the PC classes modelling structure we end up
with a class
  

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Hi George,

On 5/8/2023 5:34 PM, George Bruseker wrote:

Hi Rob and Martin,

But the point is not to make assertions about the property class 
itself but the instance of the property class.

of course


The instance of PC14 says Bob was the creator, Bob was a faker... it 
is a regular abox assertion. And it has an identifier, necessarily.


The instances of PC classes are all already abox statements. They have 
just been modelled in an odd way where we don't account for their 
ontological substance. Being in a role is an ontological substance to 
define.
Yes, we have discussed that in the past and in the OntoWeb project. 
There are 3 kinds of roles. This is the "incidental role". There was a 
classical paper about that. I'll search for it. Another role is the 
life-long role. A third one is the "persona" or "office" role.


The point I made is the difference between ontological substance of 
individuals versus that of relations, and the epistemic substance of 
arguing about the world from a bird's perspective. I did not question 
the substance of roles, but their nature as "entities" or "individuals" 
in the narrower sense.


For me it is a big problem if there are statements in the CRM that can 
be made (Bob was the builder) but can't be discussed. The abox 
statement Bob was the builder is definitely in the domain of discourse 
and for that reason should necessarily as a matter of principle be 
referenceable.
I do not get the point. All statements, property instances, are 
referenceable, by reification, Named Graphs, A13. Bob being in the role 
of builder for that Activity can be formalized as specialication of the 
P14 carried out by. What problem do you try to solve?


Otherwise, CRMbase cannot state the provenance for a piece of 
knowledge like Da Vinci had the role of painter of Mona Lisa. It 
becomes impossible. The abox information is in the PC14 instance.
Why not? Provenance of knowledge is an epistemic layer on top of any KB. 
We have written in the introduction detailed explanations about that. 
Reification


Yes we can use the partitioning pattern which is fine, but it remains 
a question of technically what to do about PC classes and it seems 
only half baked if they aren't instances of E1. They fit the 
definition of instances of E1, "This class comprises all things in the 
universe of discourse of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model." Being 
in the role of the painter of Mona Lisa is, for me, a thing in the 
universe of discourse of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model.
Well, then we have to refine the term "thing". Clearly, E1 is used 
exclusively for individual entities. We did not model so far a "CRM 
relation", in order to avoid that people instantiate an unqualified 
relation.


Logically, I do not get the point why making PC classes instances of E1 
does solve a problem, which reification, Named Graphs and E13 already 
do?  I mean, should we make an example? Could you be more specific why 
the latter 3 mechanisms do not work for any CRM property and .1 property?


Best,

Martin


The main thing is this is a technical extension to a technical 
extension to make things work and isn't a real ontological question to 
my mind.


If we wanted to do the ontological discussions we would have to open 
up the modelling box of worms, which is definitely another issue. I, 
for example, would like to be able to talk about the timespan of the 
property of something being part of something... but that's a broader 
issue :)


G

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 5:21 PM Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig 
 wrote:



Perhaps for the first time, I agree with Martin and not George!

The PC classes are part of the ontological layer -- we don't say
that classes or properties are descendants of E1. Or PC classes
are T box (terminology) and not A box (assertions using that
terminology).
(See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abox)

I can see, however, that it would be useful to be able to refer to
assertions in CRMInf and perhaps in Activity templates ... but
then those assertions _are_ A box - the are the subject of the
discourse, not the language in which the discourse is taking
place.  We have Attribute Assignment to talk about important
activities that assert relationships or properties. And if we
don't want to go to that layer of A box layer reification, then we
have the partitioning pattern -- to assert a role of a particular
individual in an activity, we can identify the part of that
activity that the person carried out and assert a role
classification on it via P2_has_type.

Rob


On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:44 AM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
 wrote:

Dear All,

I don't think it is correct to make the PC classes entities.
Even though formally an RDF class could be regarded as an
entity, ontologically we distinguish entities and

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I don't think it is correct to make the PC classes entities. Even though 
formally an RDF class could be regarded as an entity, ontologically we 
distinguish entities and relationships. The E-R paradigm makes this 
distinction also formally clear. We model the properties with .1 
properties in FOL as n-ary relationships, and not as individuals.


Making the PC classes CRM Entities is inconsistent with the FOL 
definition, which is the proper formalization.
In other words, we would make a workaround for a missing feature in RDFS 
an ontological argument. We are again in the discussion to take RDFS as 
the definition of the CRM, and not as an implementation.


As a first step, we could introduce an "E0 CRM Relation", which would 
have as instances all properties and the PC classes. The ontological 
distinction between relations and entities is fundamental to the 
methodology of ontological analysis.


As a second step, we can start to investigate to which degree PC classes 
qualify as ontological individuals in their own right. If we start 
declaring a priori all PC classes as entities, we have later to justify 
and remove all those that are relations in the true sense.  For 
instance, I cannot imagine the "being part of" a Physical Object for 
some time to become an entity, because it needs a timespan.


Best,

Martin

On 5/8/2023 12:54 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Hi all,

I would argue that the safest thing to do is to make the PCs a 
subclass of E1 and then see where we go from there. I agree with 
Martin that it can't be an information object (because everything 
would be then) but I imagine we would have a debate about what each .1 
actually ontologically is. What is certain is that by virtue of the 
fact of being something said in the universe of CIDOC CRM it is 
something sayable / mentionable. This is what E1 gives us, the most 
vague point of an object that can be pointed to and named, possibly 
classified. The problem is right now that we have something that is 
sayable in CIDOC CRM (PCxxx) but it is not referenceable. But this is 
a logical contradiction. Everything that can be said can be referenced 
and PCxxx can definitely be said.


For example, if I say that Bob was involved in the Production of Mona 
Lisa as Creator then this is something said / stated that is 
important, that has a real world referent, which has a definite 
meaning which is true or false etc. Ergo, it requires provenance. The 
basic mechanism for provenance in CRMbase is E13 and indicates that 
there was an agency behind something being asserted of something else.


Here the thing we want to talk about is the role and the role IS an 
instance of PC14. It's already an instance of a class so it should be 
referenceable. (Also one might like to put a bibliography for people 
who thought that Bob was Creator of Mona Lisa etc.)


So I would go exactly for Paulos' modelling but with this change:

:painting_sistine_chapel
crm:P01i_is_domain_of :role_of_michaelangeo_in_sistene_chapel_project

:role_of_michaelangeo_in_sistene_chapel_project
   a crm:PC14_carried_out_by ;
   crm:P02_has_range :Michelangelo  ;
   crm:P14.1_in_the_role_of  :master_craftsman .
:attrAssign1
   a crm:E13_Attribute_Assignment ;
   crm:P140_assigned_attribute_to 
:role_of_michaelangeo_in_sistene_chapel_project

   ... ... ...


On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 10:42 AM athinak  wrote:

Dear George, all,

  I am not sure that the class PC0_Typed_CRM_Property should be a
subclass of E1. In my understanding, this class implies a situation
concluded in an epistemological context. I am also not sure if the
provenance we are looking for in this set of statements is a kind of
E13. I am just wondering.

BRs,
Athina


  On 2023-03-29 16:36, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> When using the PC classes modelling structure we end up with a class
> node for a property which we can then modify with things like
'kinds'
> and 'modes' etc.
>
> Since such a statement has meaning and comes from somewhere [e.g.:
> that someone did something in some capacity (PC14 carried out by ...
> P02 has range E39 + P14.1 in the role of E55)] one sometimes
needs to
> provenance this statement with an E13 attribute assignment. Ie
we want
> to ground who made this claim.
>
> In theory this would be done with E13 pointing to the node in the
> typical fashion (p141, P140). However, the class
> PC0_Typed_CRM_Property is not declared as a subtype of E1 CRM Entity
> in the PC extension file. As a result we cannot do this.
>
> https://cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/7.1.1/CIDOC_CRM_v7.1.1_PC.rdfs
>
> I would argue PC0_Typed_CRM_Property should be declared a
subclass of
> E1_CRM_Entity.  Then it would be consistent with the rest of the
> modelling.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Best,
>
> George
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Pavlos,

I don't think this is a good solution. Every statement in a knowledge 
base is an information object. That does not say however, what it refers 
to in the universe of discourse (or real world). The identity of the 
information object is the RDF file. The identity of Michelangelo, as 
stated in the file, means Michelangelo the person and not the URI as a 
string in that file. Isn't it?


This is still an issue to resolve: In CRMinf, a Proposition Set is 
regarded as Information Object, but this is not what we actually mean, 
we mean the "meaning" of that Information Object, i.e., its truth or 
not. As such, CRMinf is inconsistent. This is, I think, Issue 614.


Best,

Martin

On 5/6/2023 12:43 AM, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear George,

An instance of a property class represents a statement / formal 
proposition. Could we thus say that it is also an  E73 Information Object?
Would multiple instantiation provide a solution to the problem you 
describe? E.g.:


:painting_sistine_chapel
     crm:P14_carried_out_by :Michelangelo .
*:statement1*
   a crm:PC14_carried_out_by, *crm:E73_Information_Object* ;
   crm:P01_has_domain :painting_sistine_chapel ;
   crm:P02_has_range :Michelangelo  ;
   crm:P14.1_in_the_role_of  :master_craftsman .
:attrAssign1
   a crm:E13_Attribute_Assignment ;
   crm:P140_assigned_attribute_to *:statement1*
   ... ... ...
Thoughts?

Have a good weekend!

Best,
Pavlos

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:36 PM George Bruseker via Crm-sig 
 wrote:


Dear all,

When using the PC classes modelling structure we end up with a
class node for a property which we can then modify with things
like 'kinds' and 'modes' etc.

Since such a statement has meaning and comes from somewhere [e.g.:
that someone did something in some capacity (PC14 carried out by
... P02 has range E39 + P14.1 in the role of E55)] one sometimes
needs to provenance this statement with an E13 attribute
assignment. Ie we want to ground who made this claim.

In theory this would be done with E13 pointing to the node in the
typical fashion (p141, P140). However, the
class PC0_Typed_CRM_Property is not declared as a subtype of E1
CRM Entity in the PC extension file. As a result we cannot do this.

https://cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/7.1.1/CIDOC_CRM_v7.1.1_PC.rdfs

I would argue PC0_Typed_CRM_Property should be declared a subclass
of E1_CRM_Entity.  Then it would be consistent with the rest of
the modelling.

Opinions?

Best,

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



--
Pavlos Fafalios

Postdoctoral researcher
Centre for Cultural Informatics & Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science - FORTH

Visiting Lecturer
Department of Management Science & Technology
Hellenic Mediterranean University

Web: http://users.ics.forth.gr/~fafalios/
Email: fafal...@ics.forth.gr
Address: N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, 70013 Heraklion, Greece
Tel: +30-2810-391619


___
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

[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Core and Application Models

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

From the beginning of the CRM development, we followed a clear 
distinction between "core model" and "application model", as has been, 
in similar form, be proposed by other authors as well.


The basic idea is that the wealth of phenomena , even for the domain of 
factual information of the historical sciencesto cannot be be 
modeledproactively, and will, in general, not be consistent. However, 
high-level "superproperties" can effectively "streamline" 
specializations under a common core, that enables to a high degree 
recall, i.e. query containment for questions across multiple resources 
that can return reasonably small result sets of most relevant facts 
available for the respective research. The latter may then be processed 
locally for further refinement, deductions and evaluations.


The managerial idea was that CRMbase and extensions managed by the SIG 
form such a core, which is continuously verified by mapping of relevent 
applications for its genericity and efficiency for global querying.


Any specific application that goes beyond a global aggregation of data 
should develop local application models. Only when enough experience 
with these application models has been collected, it should feed back 
into the models managed by the SIG for modification or enhancement. This 
experience building aims at maintaining the long-term robustness and 
effectiveness of all constructs in the core. Nevertheless, the aim to 
keep all SIG-managed extensions consistent and harmonized, poses an 
ultimate limit to the size these constructs can develop into.


To my understanding, a lot of friction in the past years has been 
created by a lack of common understanding of the difference between 
these levels. My recommendations to develop certain constructs locally 
have sometimes been misinterpreted as rejections or lack of interest.


Therefore, I propose to
"define difference between core models and application models, clarify 
the way they interface technically and epistemologically, and define the 
managerial procedures associated with the relationship between them".


This should also be a didactic goal.

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
 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Francesco, All,

I support this new issue. The discussion about the .1 properties had 
been very long, but the reasoning is, as for many solutions the CRM 
offers, widely lost. New methods arise, as the reification construct.


I just want to remind, that the issue splits into a set of 
considerations that need to be answered:


a) the ontological or epistemic (reification!) of n-ary relations, which 
may differ widely between the one or the other PC class. This is 
intellectually very interesting.


b) the question of dynamic  vocabularies for specializing CRM concepts 
without class-property bindings: I.e., The equivalent of "p2 has type" 
for properties, which could also be solved (but hardly taken up by 
users) by local subproperty declarations.


c) The performance in real large scale implementations. Current graph 
databases and quad stores still pay a high penalty for intermediate 
nodes. This needs real bench marking, not just opinions. If deductions 
over PC classes need, in practice, to be materialized, there is no 
advantage over local subproperties, which are performant.


d) Relevance: what are the research needs for querying large knowledge 
bases in which better ontological representation of PC classes will make 
the difference justifying the intellectual effort.


I suggest as a first step to solve a), without taking decisions about 
new constructs. I assume that a /certain part /of the .1 properties are 
of "reification" nature, whereas /another part/ is of hidden processes, 
and /another part/ is vocabularies of roles, such as "carried out by".


I assume replacing PC classes by reification would not work for deducing 
the base property, if this is relevant.


Another aspect is, that computer science and has so far failed to 
provide an effective mechanism to specialize models by replacing links 
by paths, comparable to the IsA.


All the best,

Martin

On 5/3/2023 12:05 AM, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear Francesco,

You have raised some interesting points which, I think, need 
discussion (but after closing this issue ), including:

- what was the motivation of introducing property classes
- how can we tackle ambiguity of PCs (classes vs properties, etc etc)
- why not directly using the standard RDF reification vocabulary 
, where 
properties can be attached to statements/triples.
I will include your comments in the working document of Issue 588, 
with a suggestion to open a new issue for discussing and working on them.


Best regards,
Pavlos


On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 8:39 PM Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig 
 wrote:


Dear Pavlos, all

reconsidering this question of the properties of properties and
the proposed solution of the properties-classes remain some doubts
and interrogations to me, in particular in relation with the best
practices in the field of serialization of conceptual models in RDF.

Metadata about properties as instances, i.e. statement, can be
expressed with the standard RDF reification or the new RDF* standard.

What is the best practice in the RDF community to express this
kind of properties of properties (and also dates, etc. added to
properties in conceptual models) ?


And furthermore: are the CRM properties of properties just
'metadata' or do they carry some additional ontological substance ?

The technical solution of 'PC' does not remove all ambiguity: are
they in the end properties or classes? and when we talk about
adding, as now, labels and scope notes to the PCs they do becomes
classes, don't they? what is then their substance? just to be
reified properties?

One could come to think that in fact there is more substance but
not totally and adequately expressed, and that should be more
carefully analyzed like in the case of P14.1 in the role of: E55
Type or P107.1 kind of member: E55 Type.

Take the example of  P3.1 has type: E55 Type — "This property
allows differentiation of specific notes, e.g., “construction”,
“decoration” etc." (thank you Pavlos for the work you've done).

If P3 is not just taken as a CRM replacement of /rdfs:comment/,
shouldn't the so called associated 'note' be modelled as an
information object of type 'damage description' (chipped at edge
of handle) related to the corresponding human-made object by P129
is about. Or 'chipped at edge of handle' would be a E3 Condition
or State and the 'note' its description?

But because P3 has E62 String as a range, which "is not further
elaborated upon within the model", it becomes —P3 I mean— quite
relevant as it captures the characterization of the item itself,
its internal structures, appearance etc.

So, again, are there any best practices in other communities of
RDF experts that apply to these types of situations that should be
analyzed before further specifying a notion of PC that 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Implementing .2 Properties in RDF

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear George,

I agree that often links with properties simplify a more complex entity. 
There are complex questions of the philosophical distinction between 
relationships and the entities that exist by their own. E-R model and 
RDFS differ considerably in this respect. Regarding the question of 
"state", I think the use of the term itself suggests a simplicity that 
does not exist. We have discussed extensively concepts of state and 
situation, without coming to a clear unique definition of what it can 
mean. In the extreme, we can regard any property instance as a kind of 
"state".


I see the question more practical, to model all these intermediate 
things explicitly as distinct, in a proactive way,  would need a lot of 
effort, without a clear demand. Also, there is the question, where to 
stop the intermediate of the intermediate of the intermediate entity. 
With respect to the statigraphic relations below, I do not agree that 
there are hidden entities. Simply, I regard this "directed 
correspondence" construct to be of /epistemic /nature, and it is missing 
as primitive in the KR languages we use.


All the best,

Martin

On 5/2/2023 3:08 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear both,

I am more and more swayed by Francesco's argument that every PC 
property class hides an actual ontological entity which we are failing 
to properly model.


I think in principle what Pavlos proposes is syntactically correct and 
insofar as we stay on PC here that is probably the way to go.


That said, in this case we are actually building PCs on PCs 
essentially because we want to avoid saying that there is a state that 
exists or existed between two things and held for some time. Perhaps 
in a later version of archaeo if we are able to accept that states do 
exist we could significantly simplify this model by having real state 
classes for physical relations etc. This I just forward for thought. 
The present modelling completely depends on PC properties and there 
would be no good reason to pause the present development path of 
CRMArchaeo which is reaching a stable point, by presently changing 
course. We can maintain the state we presently have.


Best,

George

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 1:55 PM Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig 
 wrote:


Dear Gerald, all,

I think we can follow the same reification approach as we do for
the .1 properties.
In this case, we just need to provide the property classes of the
domain and range properties of AP13.2, i.e.:
    PC_AP13_has_stratigraphic_relation_to
and
    PC_AP11_has_physical_relation_to

Then, here is a (draft) example of RDF triples that make use of
these constructs:

***

   a   .

   a   .


     .

   a  ;
     ;
     .


     .

   a  ;
     ;
     .


      
***

But there are also other approaches for implementing this, such as
using named graphs, or the standard RDF reification method (i.e.
using rdf:subject, rdf:object, etc.), or RDF-start (I think).

Please correct me if I have misunderstood something!

Best regards,
Pavlos

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 3:38 PM Hiebel, Gerald via Crm-sig
 wrote:

Dear all,

we discussed CRMarchaeo and are going to make a proposel for a
new version in the next CRM-SIG.

In the discussion we encountered the issue of not having yet a
policy/strategy for implementing .2 properties which means
properties related to properties.

We have one of them in CRMarchaeo:

*AP13.2 justified by (is justification of)***

Domain: _AP13_has stratigraphic relation to

Range: _AP11_has physical relation to

Scope note: This property identifies the type of physical
relation that was used to justify the type  of stratigraphic
relation assigned to the relation between two A5

Stratigraphic
Modification events. Physical relations of “above” or “fills”
may justify the stratigraphic relation type “after”. Figure 7
gives a graphical representation and Figure 6 shows an example.

I would ask to either create a new issue for the
implementation of .2 properties or include the discussion in
the existing issue 588 as the strategy should be the same for
.1 and .2 .

Whatever you think appropriate.

Kind regards,

Gerald

*From: *Crm-sig  on behalf of
Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig 
*Reply to: *Pavlos Fafalios 
*Date: *Thursday, 1. December 2022 at 17:46
*To: *crm-sig 
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1
Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

   

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note PRINCIPLES

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

By the way, I think I just made a statement below about principles. 
Would you regard this as noteworthy as principles?


Best,

Martin

On 4/30/2023 6:36 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear Wolfgang,

Your questions well-taken, but please do not seek a logical surrogate 
of reality. It does not exist. The logic can be not more than an 
overlay, approximating and simplifying reality, in more detail:


On 4/21/2023 1:59 PM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:

Here's a diff:

* label:
OLD   O13 triggers (is triggered by)
NEW   O13 triggered (was triggered by)
(in the examples it was already called "triggered" rather than 
"triggers")


* scope note:
Part 1 is unchanged:
This property associates an instance of E5 Event that triggers 
another instance of E5 Event with the latter. It identifies the 
interaction between events: an event can activate (trigger) other 
events in a target system that is in a situation of sustained 
tension, such as a trap or an unstable mountain slope giving way to a 
land slide after a rain or earthquake.


Part 2:
OLD   In that sense the triggering event is interpreted as a cause. 
However, the association of the two events is based on their temporal 
proximity, with the triggering event ending when the triggered event 
starts.


NEW   The distinction of the triggering event from the triggered one 
lies in their difference of nature: The starting of the triggered 
event is the result of an interaction of constituents with the 
triggering one, but not a continuation of the kinds of processes of 
the latter. Therefore the triggering event must spatiotemporally 
overlap with the initial time and area of the triggered event, and 
the spreading out of the subsequent phenomena must initiate from this 
area and time and not from multiple independent areas.


* FOL:
O13(x,y) ⇒ P182(x,y) removed

(Domain, range, quantification, examples are unchanged)


About the changes:

Scope note part 2: If there needs to be an interaction of 
constituents and thus a spatiotemporal overlap, then I am not sure I 
understand the 1966 flood example. There is an overlap between the 
flood and a book getting wet and an overlap between a book being wet 
as a result and the growing of the mould, but is there an obvious 
interaction between the flood and the mould beginning to grow on a 
book? I am assuming O13 is not meant to be transitive?


What is the initial time and area of "mould growth on books stored in 
flooded library rooms"? Is it obvious that this area is connected and 
not multiple independent areas?
Well, it is obvious to any expert. The silent assumption of such a 
case of "causality" is that the interaction would not have happened 
under "normal" circumstances. The books obviously became wet by the 
flood. No normal library would make the books wet otherwise. The 
statement that the flood "triggered" actually approximates and 
simplifies the statement that the books became wet by the flood in a 
way that cold not be remedied readily by the library. In general, is 
not possible to break down such processes into discrete atomic logical 
steps.


There is a considerable logical-philosophical complexity to any 
concept of causality. Therefore we have refused so far to introduce 
such a concept into CRMbase. To my understanding, the reasoning is 
about defaults of the environment, blaming the more exceptional to be 
the "cause", whereas others could equally blame the lack of foresight 
and protective measures, or any other random factor, just as someone 
getting in the path of a bullet by walking.


Would that explanation satisfy your question?


FOL / superproperties: The new scope note suggests P132 
"spatiotemporally overlaps with", as well as P176 "starts before the 
start of" (also suggested by Thanasis) and  P173i "ends after or with 
the start of"?


Additional questions:

Scope note part 1: What is the sustained tension in the target system 
(books stored in library rooms) in the 1966 flood example? Or in a 
house that is destroyed by an earthquake or a wildfire?
The sustained tension in this case is the sensitivity of the material 
to humidity. Whatever would raise humidity sufficiently would 
"trigger" such a process.


Examples: Since we want to get rid of fictitious examples, would it 
make sense to replace the earthquake/landslide example? 
Non-fictitious examples would be 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#2018_fire or 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_Things_Go (an artistic cascade 
of triggering events)
Sure, I wonder if colleagues from FORTH could recover landslide 
examples from the European InGeoClouds project.


Good examples could also be some houses falling down at the seaside 
around Santa Barbara coast in California, because of landing erosion 
approaching them.


All the best,

Martin


Best,
Wolfgang


Am 20.04.2023 um 14:01 s

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Wolfgang,

Your questions well-taken, but please do not seek a logical surrogate of 
reality. It does not exist. The logic can be not more than an overlay, 
approximating and simplifying reality, in more detail:


On 4/21/2023 1:59 PM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:

Here's a diff:

* label:
OLD   O13 triggers (is triggered by)
NEW   O13 triggered (was triggered by)
(in the examples it was already called "triggered" rather than "triggers")

* scope note:
Part 1 is unchanged:
This property associates an instance of E5 Event that triggers another instance 
of E5 Event with the latter. It identifies the interaction between events: an 
event can activate (trigger) other events in a target system that is in a 
situation of sustained tension, such as a trap or an unstable mountain slope 
giving way to a land slide after a rain or earthquake.

Part 2:
OLD   In that sense the triggering event is interpreted as a cause. However, 
the association of the two events is based on their temporal proximity, with 
the triggering event ending when the triggered event starts.

NEW   The distinction of the triggering event from the triggered one lies in 
their difference of nature: The starting of the triggered event is the result 
of an interaction of constituents with the triggering one, but not a 
continuation of the kinds of processes of the latter. Therefore the triggering 
event must spatiotemporally overlap with the initial time and area of the 
triggered event, and the spreading out of the subsequent phenomena must 
initiate from this area and time and not from multiple independent areas.

* FOL:
O13(x,y) ⇒ P182(x,y) removed

(Domain, range, quantification, examples are unchanged)


About the changes:

Scope note part 2: If there needs to be an interaction of constituents and thus 
a spatiotemporal overlap, then I am not sure I understand the 1966 flood 
example. There is an overlap between the flood and a book getting wet and an 
overlap between a book being wet as a result and the growing of the mould, but 
is there an obvious interaction between the flood and the mould beginning to 
grow on a book? I am assuming O13 is not meant to be transitive?

What is the initial time and area of "mould growth on books stored in flooded 
library rooms"? Is it obvious that this area is connected and not multiple 
independent areas?
Well, it is obvious to any expert. The silent assumption of such a case 
of "causality" is that the interaction would not have happened under 
"normal" circumstances. The books obviously became wet by the flood. No 
normal library would make the books wet otherwise. The statement that 
the flood "triggered" actually approximates and simplifies the statement 
that the books became wet by the flood in a way that cold not be 
remedied readily by the library. In general, is not possible to break 
down such processes into discrete atomic logical steps.


There is a considerable logical-philosophical complexity to any concept 
of causality. Therefore we have refused so far to introduce such a 
concept into CRMbase. To my understanding, the reasoning is about 
defaults of the environment, blaming the more exceptional to be the 
"cause", whereas others could equally blame the lack of foresight and 
protective measures, or any other random factor, just as someone getting 
in the path of a bullet by walking.


Would that explanation satisfy your question?


FOL / superproperties: The new scope note suggests P132 "spatiotemporally overlaps with", as well 
as P176 "starts before the start of" (also suggested by Thanasis) and  P173i "ends after or 
with the start of"?

Additional questions:

Scope note part 1: What is the sustained tension in the target system (books 
stored in library rooms) in the 1966 flood example? Or in a house that is 
destroyed by an earthquake or a wildfire?
The sustained tension in this case is the sensitivity of the material to 
humidity. Whatever would raise humidity sufficiently would "trigger" 
such a process.


Examples: Since we want to get rid of fictitious examples, would it make sense 
to replace the earthquake/landslide example? Non-fictitious examples would be 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#2018_fire or 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_Things_Go (an artistic cascade of 
triggering events)
Sure, I wonder if colleagues from FORTH could recover landslide examples 
from the European InGeoClouds project.


Good examples could also be some houses falling down at the seaside 
around Santa Barbara coast in California, because of landing erosion 
approaching them.


All the best,

Martin


Best,
Wolfgang



Am 20.04.2023 um 14:01 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig :

Dear All,

Here my first go:

OLD

O13 triggers (is triggered by)

Domain:
E5 Event
Range:
E5 Event
Quantification:
many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:
This property

[Crm-sig] Issue_510_Belief_Adoption working document

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Attached the working document for completing the new definitions of 
Belief Adoption, interfacing with the latest version of CRMtex.


Please pay attention to the examples which go through the whole constructs:

The first is the nice text 
(https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/who-was-nero) by Francesca Bologna 
about Emperor Nero of Rome, which summarizes the recent revisions of 
historical beliefs about his actual deeds:


I cite:
"But what do we really know about Nero? Can we separate the scandalous 
stories told by later authors from the reality of his rule?


Most of what we know about Nero comes from the surviving works of three 
historians – Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio. All written decades 
after Nero's death, their accounts have long shaped our understanding of 
this emperor's rule. However, far from being impartial narrators 
presenting objective accounts of past events, these authors and their 
sources wrote with a very clear agenda in mind. Nero's demise brought 
forward a period of chaos and civil war – one that ended only when a new 
dynasty seized power, the Flavians. Authors writing under the Flavians 
all *had an interest* in legitimising the new ruling family by 
portraying the last of the Julio-Claudians in the worst possible light, 
*turning history into propaganda*. These accounts became the 
'historical' sources used by later historians, therefore perpetuating a 
fabricated image of Nero, which has survived all the way to the present."


and:

"On 19 July AD 64, a fire started close to the Circus Maximus. The 
flames soon encompassed the entire city of Rome and the fire raged for 
nine days. Only four of the 14 districts of the capital were spared, 
while three were completely destroyed.


Rome had already been razed by flames – and would be again in its long 
history – but this event was so severe it came to be known as the Great 
Fire of Rome.


Later historians blamed Nero for the event, claiming that he set the 
capital ablaze in order to clear land for the construction of a vast new 
palace. According to Suetonius and Cassius Dio, Nero took in the view of 
the burning city from the imperial residence while playing the lyre and 
singing about the fall of Troy. *This story, however, is fictional*."


This text represents the characteristic reasoning about the trust in 
historical sources we want to model as "Belief Adoption".


The detail that Nero could not be in Rome and Antium the same time is 
however logical, and an instance of Inference Making.


As examples of Provenance Assessment, I used the discussion about the 
authenticity of the "Nebra Sky Disc", which was initially regarded as a 
probable forgery, and later proven to be from Bronce Age. The story how 
the looting place was recovered and the object ended up in a museum is 
exciting as well.


We could add the opposite story, about the Minoan Godess with Snakes:

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/150499

https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2003/2003.02.36/

which was initially believed to be Bronze Age, and recently be regarded 
rather as forgery.


I still do not have a good example questioning the provenance of a text. 
Often, ancient texts contain more modern add-ons. May be someone on this 
list is aware of a good example.


Feedback welcome!


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
Vox:+30(2810)391625
  Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr
  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
 
 Vox:+30(2810)391625
 Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
 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
 
 Vox:+30(2810)391625
 Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
 Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl


Issue_510_Belief_Adoption_WD.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Here my first go:

*OLD*

*O13 triggers (is triggered by)***

Domain:

E5 <#_E2_Temporal_Entity>Event

Range:

E5 <#_E2_Temporal_Entity>Event

Quantification:

many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of E5 Event that triggers another 
instance of E5 Event with the latter. It identifies the interaction 
between events: an event can activate (trigger) other events in a target 
system that is in a situation of sustained tension, such as a trap or an 
unstable mountain slope giving way to a land slide after a rain or 
earthquake. In that sense the triggering event is interpreted as a 
cause. However, the association of the two events is based on their 
temporal proximity, with the triggering event ending when the triggered 
event starts.


Examples:

The earthquake of Parnitha in 1999 /triggered/the rotational landslide 
that was observed along the roadon the same day. (fictitious)


The explosionat the Montserrat massif in 2007 (near Barcelona, Spain) 
/triggeredthe /rock fall event happened on 14 February 2007 
(Vilajosana et al., 2008).


The 1966 flood in Florence /triggered/ mould growth on books stored in 
flooded library rooms (Rubinstein, N., 1966)


In First Order Logic:

O13(x,y) ⇒E5(x)

O13(x,y) ⇒E5(y)

O13(x,y) ⇒P182(x,y)

*NEW*

*O13 triggered (was triggered by)***

Domain:

E5 <#_E2_Temporal_Entity>Event

Range:

E5 <#_E2_Temporal_Entity>Event

Quantification:

many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of E5 Event that triggers another 
instance of E5 Event with the latter. It identifies the interaction 
between events: an event can activate (trigger) other events in a target 
system that is in a situation of sustained tension, such as a trap or an 
unstable mountain slope giving way to a land slide after a rain or 
earthquake.


The distinction of the triggering event from the triggered one lies in 
their difference of nature: The starting of the triggered event is the 
result of an interaction of constituents with the triggering one, but 
not a continuation of the kinds of processes of the latter. Therefore 
the triggering event must spatiotemporally overlap with the initial time 
and area of the triggered event, and the spreading out of the subsequent 
phenomena must initiate from this area and time and not from multiple 
independent areas.


Examples:

The earthquake of Parnitha in 1999 /triggered/the rotational landslide 
that was observed along the roadon the same day. (fictitious)


The explosionat the Montserrat massif in 2007 (near Barcelona, Spain) 
/triggeredthe /rock fall event happened on 14 February 2007 
(Vilajosana et al., 2008).


The 1966 flood in Florence /triggered/ mould growth on books stored in 
flooded library rooms (Rubinstein, N., 1966)


In First Order Logic:

O13(x,y) ⇒E5(x)

O13(x,y) ⇒E5(y)


**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
 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Belief Adoption example, HW issue 510

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Dariah,

Thank you, I agree! I think we need to extend the meaning of I7 to 
"disbelief" as well. That comes in handy with the Nero example, because 
together with believing Tacitus where Nero was comes disbelieving 
Suetonius where Nero was.


I'll work on that. It could be an alternative property or just the Truth 
Value associated. Opinions?


Best,

Martin

On 4/11/2023 6:50 PM, Гук Дарья Юрьевна wrote:
Dear all, if somebody is agree with hypothesis or some thesis, it's 
clear, but if thereis a reason to be against. How it will work?


Sincerely, Daria

*От:* Crm-sig  от имени Martin Doerr via 
Crm-sig 

*Отправлено:* 11 апреля 2023 г. 15:32:32
*Кому:* crm-sig
*Тема:* [Crm-sig] Belief Adoption example, HW issue 510
Dear All,

Here my homework with a real belief  adoption.


  I7 Belief Adoption

Subclass of: I1 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EywWv4dE2B1bH8NNm8ec0JGa6Af7_GsR/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs>Argumentation


Superclass of:

Scope note:This class comprises the action of an E39 Actor adopting 
propositions taken from an interpretation of the intended meaning of 
an instance of E73 Information Object as being true or in some way 
likely to be true. The adopted propositions constitute the conclusion 
of the action in the form of a new instance of Ix4 Adopted Belief of 
the adopting actor.


The basis of I7 Belief Adoption is the justification of trust in the 
source of the adopted propositions rather than the application of 
rules for inferring the respective propositions from logical premises.


Typical examples are the citation of academic papers or the reuse of 
data sets.


Where an instance of I7 Belief Adoption is based on personal 
communication (marked as pers.comm. in the studied text) this should 
be represented by using P2 /has type/: “Pers.Comm.” directly from the 
instance of I7 Belief Adoption.


Properties:Jxx5 adopted interpretation (was concluded by): Ix4 Adopted 
Belief


J7 is based on evidence from (was evidence for): E73 Information Object

Jxx3 assumed meaning (was assumed by): Ix2 Intended Meaning Belief

Jxx4 assuming provenance (was assumed by): Ix5 Provenance Belief

J11 used manifestation (was manifestation used by): F3 Manifestation

J12**used (was used by): F5 Item

Examples:

§My adoption of the belief that Dragendorff type 29 bowls are from the 
1st Century AD


§Francesca Bologna’s adoption of Tacitus’ belief that Nero was not in 
Rome when the Great Fire started. (F. Bologna, 2021). [Francesca 
Bologna adopted Tacitus belief, of the only historian who was actually 
alive at the time of the Great Fire of Rome (although only 8 years 
old): "Nero at this time was at Antium and did not return to Rome 
until the fire approached his house" in : Tacitus, Publius Cornelius. 
The Annals. Book 15 [15.16].]


See: https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/who-was-nero, By Francesca 
Bologna, Nero Project Curator, Publication date: 22 April 2021. 
accessed 4/10/2023


--

  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



--

 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

[Crm-sig] Belief Adoption example, HW issue 510

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Here my homework with a real belief  adoption.


 I7 Belief Adoption

Subclass of: I1 
Argumentation


Superclass of:

Scope note:This class comprises the action of an E39 Actor adopting 
propositions taken from an interpretation of the intended meaning of an 
instance of E73 Information Object as being true or in some way likely 
to be true. The adopted propositions constitute the conclusion of the 
action in the form of a new instance of Ix4 Adopted Belief of the 
adopting actor.


The basis of I7 Belief Adoption is the justification of trust in the 
source of the adopted propositions rather than the application of rules 
for inferring the respective propositions from logical premises.


Typical examples are the citation of academic papers or the reuse of 
data sets.


Where an instance of I7 Belief Adoption is based on personal 
communication (marked as pers.comm. in the studied text) this should be 
represented by using P2 /has type/: “Pers.Comm.” directly from the 
instance of I7 Belief Adoption.


Properties:Jxx5 adopted interpretation (was concluded by): Ix4 Adopted 
Belief


J7 is based on evidence from (was evidence for): E73 Information Object

Jxx3 assumed meaning (was assumed by): Ix2 Intended Meaning Belief

Jxx4 assuming provenance (was assumed by): Ix5 Provenance Belief

J11 used manifestation (was manifestation used by): F3 Manifestation

J12**used (was used by): F5 Item

Examples:

§My adoption of the belief that Dragendorff type 29 bowls are from the 
1st Century AD


§Francesca Bologna’s adoption of Tacitus’ belief that Nero was not in 
Rome when the Great Fire started. (F. Bologna, 2021). [Francesca Bologna 
adopted Tacitus belief, of the only historian who was actually alive at 
the time of the Great Fire of Rome (although only 8 years old): "Nero at 
this time was at Antium and did not return to Rome until the fire 
approached his house" in : Tacitus, Publius Cornelius. The Annals. Book 
15 [15.16].]


See: https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/who-was-nero, By Francesca 
Bologna, Nero Project Curator, Publication date: 22 April 2021. accessed 
4/10/2023


--

 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

[Crm-sig] Illustrating Presence, Issue 523

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I propose to illustrate the Presence construct with frst part of the 
travel of Humboldt to Venezuela:


Take the travels of Alexander von Humboldt. Many of his whereabouts do 
not qualify as activities.


Use

as sources: 
http://www.whg-lu.de/is2000/avh/regenwald/suedamerikareise.htm (see 
Appendix, google translation)


and “Alexander von Humboldt: Die Südamerika-Reise (Einzige von A. v. 
Humboldt autorisierte deutsche Ausgabe): Originaltitel: Reise in die 
Äquinoktial-Gegenden des Neuen Kontinents“


Actors: Aime Bonpland, Alexander von Humboldt

1799, June 5 to June 19: *MOVE* from from La Coruna, Spain to Tenerife 
island, Spain,


1799, June 20 to June 24 *PRESENCE* in Tenerife island, Spain, 
*PRESENCE* on Pico de Teide summit, meeting the Dragon Tree still 
*living today*. Existing Illustrations.


1799 June 25 to July 16 *MOVE* from from Tenerife island, Spain to 
Cumana, (today in Venezuela)


1799 July 17 to November 17 *PRESENCE* in Cumana, travel inland, 
*PRESENCE* in Cumana


1799 18. bis 21. Nov. *MOVE* from Cumana to Caracas (today in Venezuela)

If this is regarded a good case, please give me feed back and help with 
graphics. I have read the complete publication in German on Kindle. All 
places and times in it are very precise.


Other cases would be witnesses of olitical events, such as French 
Revolution, that happened to be in the city at respective times. Famous 
became the discovery of a diary of a mercenary in the sacking of 
Magdeburg, but the content has not yet been published. These uses of 
Presence allow for collecting material from people around important 
social developments.


I do not have access to such cases, and would need help to find them.

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
 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I suggest to extend the sense of /AP29 appears in/ to activity type. The 
current scope note (issue 294) talks about object types only.  We can 
think of an "appears in" described by spacetime (E4 Period), "typically" 
using object types, /appearing under/ actor types, or "appearing within" 
Groups.


The sense of "appears in" does not make claims that cannot be related to 
evidence.


Opinions?

On 3/10/2023 9:47 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

I agree.

I think there is still an open discussion how to document such things, 
but the research questions could be formulated. I agree that we must 
not fall in the trap to produce artificial discrimination by crisp 
classes between things that are in constant flow and transition. I 
think a good vocabulary for *associating particular*, *intellectually 
related *phenomena, core and wider, with all the flexibility of 
generalization, specialization and faceting, and the *subjectivity of 
the classifying* documentalist, and *properties explicating* 
*evidential influence* (reported by participants or observed) would 
serve all requirements for documentation, search and discovery and 
wider research.


We want not to say:" this is Tango" and "this is not", we want to say 
"this appears to be an early form of Argentinian Tango performance" 
"exhibits elements of" etc.


I think we could talk about general "appearance" of such phenomena in 
a  E4 Period X  and comprising people of type Y, where the evidential 
particulars are the support of the wider statement, without claiming 
boundaries nor coverage within these limits. The phenomena would be 
particular, observable manifestations of various kinds, performances, 
scores, songs, poems, oral literature, costumes, social meetings etc.


By the way, I think Tango is much more complex than Rembetiko. There 
may be quite different heterogeneous forms and communities, an 
international industry creating Tango apparel, training business etc.


Rembetiko is still quite confined, has musical rythmic and stylistic 
characteristics and is not (much) commercialized.


Best,

Martin

On 3/10/2023 9:42 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:



It is as I wrote, an interesting question. The idea behind 
the development of the CRM is that it should be based on documented 
practice in the various disciplines and a be a formalization of this 
documented practice. It is not meant to be a general formal 
description of  everything going on in the entire world.  The use of 
fformal ontologies tends to push the documentation into 
structuralism. Structuralism is well suited as a basis for many 
things, but not all. Many cultural phenomena are better documented by 
free text essays.


Best,
Christian-Emil


*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Franco 
Niccolucci via Crm-sig 

*Sent:* 10 March 2023 07:48
*To:* Martin Doerr
*Cc:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and 
E74 Group

Thank you all for your comments and contributions.

None of the solutions proposed so far convinces me.

Intangible heritage (Tango, for instance) is not the cumulation of 
many/all related activities/actors (Tango performances, Tango 
dancers, etc), which instead are related because they are all 
manifestations/performers of the same abstract concept.


Rebetiko is even more difficult to characterize as it involves a 
particular lifestyle and individuals - the mangas in the past, 
perhaps now more a mood than a social class  - and is often 
associated with the bouzouki. But of course it is not the mere 
addition of all this.


I am not suggesting to study such concepts in greater detail, it may 
be off-topic.


I think however that it is impossible to document monuments without 
addressing their intangible component. This came up when dealing with 
conservation: it is not just a matter to maintain their physical 
state, preserving their E3 Condition State which according to its 
scope note "describes the prevailing PHYSICAL condition of any 
material object”. Opening a Mac Donald in the Coliseum would not 
alter too much its E3, but would probably depreciate its value as a 
monument.


best

Franco

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

Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

I agree.

I think there is still an open discussion how to document such things, 
but the research questions could be formulated. I agree that we must not 
fall in the trap to produce artificial discrimination by crisp classes 
between things that are in constant flow and transition. I think a good 
vocabulary for *associating particular*, *intellectually related 
*phenomena, core and wider, with all the flexibility of generalization, 
specialization and faceting, and the *subjectivity of the classifying* 
documentalist, and *properties explicating* *evidential influence* 
(reported by participants or observed) would serve all requirements for 
documentation, search and discovery and wider research.


We want not to say:" this is Tango" and "this is not", we want to say 
"this appears to be an early form of Argentinian Tango performance" 
"exhibits elements of" etc.


I think we could talk about general "appearance" of such phenomena in a  
E4 Period X  and comprising people of type Y, where the evidential 
particulars are the support of the wider statement, without claiming 
boundaries nor coverage within these limits. The phenomena would be 
particular, observable manifestations of various kinds, performances, 
scores, songs, poems, oral literature, costumes, social meetings etc.


By the way, I think Tango is much more complex than Rembetiko. There may 
be quite different heterogeneous forms and communities, an international 
industry creating Tango apparel, training business etc.


Rembetiko is still quite confined, has musical rythmic and stylistic 
characteristics and is not (much) commercialized.


Best,

Martin

On 3/10/2023 9:42 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:



It is as I wrote, an interesting question. The idea behind 
the development of the CRM is that it should be based on documented 
practice in the various disciplines and a be a formalization of this 
documented practice. It is not meant to be a general formal 
description of  everything going on in the entire world.  The use of 
fformal ontologies tends to push the documentation into structuralism. 
Structuralism is well suited as a basis for many things, but not all. 
Many cultural phenomena are better documented by free text essays.


Best,
Christian-Emil


*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Franco 
Niccolucci via Crm-sig 

*Sent:* 10 March 2023 07:48
*To:* Martin Doerr
*Cc:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and 
E74 Group

Thank you all for your comments and contributions.

None of the solutions proposed so far convinces me.

Intangible heritage (Tango, for instance) is not the cumulation of 
many/all related activities/actors (Tango performances, Tango dancers, 
etc), which instead are related because they are all 
manifestations/performers of the same abstract concept.


Rebetiko is even more difficult to characterize as it involves a 
particular lifestyle and individuals - the mangas in the past, perhaps 
now more a mood than a social class  - and is often associated with 
the bouzouki. But of course it is not the mere addition of all this.


I am not suggesting to study such concepts in greater detail, it may 
be off-topic.


I think however that it is impossible to document monuments without 
addressing their intangible component. This came up when dealing with 
conservation: it is not just a matter to maintain their physical 
state, preserving their E3 Condition State which according to its 
scope note "describes the prevailing PHYSICAL condition of any 
material object”. Opening a Mac Donald in the Coliseum would not alter 
too much its E3, but would probably depreciate its value as a monument.


best

Franco





Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL
Chief Technology Officer 4CH

Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy




> Il giorno 9 mar 2023, alle ore 20:23, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
 ha scritto:

>
> Dear All,
>
> I suggest to make a case study with Rebetiko. It is a relatively 
confined tradition and living. We have access to a lot of material 
here in Greece. By the way, we met a young lady from India who came to 
Greece and has learned to play Rebetiko.

>
> I think we should look at phenomena and people influencing each 
other, protagonists, etc., of varying types appearing in a cultural 
space and time, in particular concentrating at specific places and 
times. People meeting in these performances and carrying the idea 
forward. A certain "density" keeps it alive, like a species surviving. 
I agree with Franco.

>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 3/9/2023 8:00 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I think this i

Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I suggest to make a case study with Rebetiko. It is a relatively 
confined tradition and living. We have access to a lot of material here 
in Greece. By the way, we met a young lady from India who came to Greece 
and has learned to play Rebetiko.


I think we should look at phenomena and people influencing each other, 
protagonists, etc., of varying types appearing in a cultural space and 
time, in particular concentrating at specific places and times. People 
meeting in these performances and carrying the idea forward. A certain 
"density" keeps it alive, like a species surviving. I agree with Franco.


Best,

Martin

On 3/9/2023 8:00 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

I think this is quite overstretching what an activity is. Of course we 
can make quick and dirty use of any class. I cannot imagine, how an 
"All Tango Performances" could be associated with a clear identity, 
unity and distinction from others. This would mean that any type of 
activity becomes an activity, isn't it? All specializations and 
generalizations would then be identical with part-of of activities?


How would you then give an account of different strands of such 
traditions? This model virtually denies evolution and variation. I 
think that needs serious thought and a model which provides a much 
subtler relation between an idea, its execution and its evolution.


Note, that any type is a Conceptual Object. Creating Tango as an E55 
Type is a creation. I'd suggest to look at the new properties 
connecting Types with periods in which they appear. The challenge is, 
for me, not to provide a place to say "Tango is here", but to relate 
individual activities, performances, music, fashions, costumes etc 
along lines of evolution, variation and cross-fertalization.


Best,

Martin

On 3/9/2023 6:33 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
I'm posting the following response text from Steve because the 
mailing list software tosses his messages out:


Just a quick thought.
As you mention a set of individual performances (E7 Activities) you 
could say that the individual performances (E7 Activity: performance 
of Tango on particular day/time and at a particular place) P9i/forms 
part of/a master E7 Activity (All Tango Performances).
E7 Activity (All Tango Performances) P16/used specific object/E28 
Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango).
E7 Activity (All Tango Performances) P14/carried out by/E39 
Actor(Tango Community)

You could also say:
E28 Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango) P94i/was 
created by/E65 Creation P14/carried out by/E39 Actor(Tango Community)
This would make the community both the creator and performer of the 
intangible heritage: which I believe is the current "best practice".
The timespan of the creation is of course open-ended as these are 
"living" traditions.

HTH
SdS

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:57 PM George Bruseker 
 wrote:


I'd use the term 'forms of life' instead of 'intangible
heritage'. Then the likely closest CRM concept is E5 Event, at
least if you want to be able to associate to actors in any
direct way.

E5 Event "Tango" p11 had participant E74 Group.

Probably to be more expressive one would need an extension for
social life!

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:18 PM Christian-Emil Smith Ore via
Crm-sig  wrote:

It is a good question. Also note that documentation of
intangible cultural heritage is in most cases ttangible.
According to UNESCO intangible cultural heritage is defined as

Article 2 – Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention,
1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices,
representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as
the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces
associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some
cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural
heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from
generation to generation, is constantly recreated by
communities and groups in response to their environment,
their interaction with nature and their history, and provides
them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting
respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the
purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given
solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible
with existing international human rights instruments, as well
as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities,
groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.

2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in
paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following
domains:
(a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a
vehicle of t

Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I think this is quite overstretching what an activity is. Of course we 
can make quick and dirty use of any class. I cannot imagine, how an "All 
Tango Performances" could be associated with a clear identity, unity and 
distinction from others. This would mean that any type of activity 
becomes an activity, isn't it? All specializations and generalizations 
would then be identical with part-of of activities?


How would you then give an account of different strands of such 
traditions? This model virtually denies evolution and variation. I think 
that needs serious thought and a model which provides a much subtler 
relation between an idea, its execution and its evolution.


Note, that any type is a Conceptual Object. Creating Tango as an E55 
Type is a creation. I'd suggest to look at the new properties connecting 
Types with periods in which they appear. The challenge is, for me, not 
to provide a place to say "Tango is here", but to relate individual 
activities, performances, music, fashions, costumes etc along lines of 
evolution, variation and cross-fertalization.


Best,

Martin

On 3/9/2023 6:33 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
I'm posting the following response text from Steve because the mailing 
list software tosses his messages out:


Just a quick thought.
As you mention a set of individual performances (E7 Activities) you 
could say that the individual performances (E7 Activity: performance 
of Tango on particular day/time and at a particular place) P9i/forms 
part of/a master E7 Activity (All Tango Performances).
E7 Activity (All Tango Performances) P16/used specific object/E28 
Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango).
E7 Activity (All Tango Performances) P14/carried out by/E39 
Actor(Tango Community)

You could also say:
E28 Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango) P94i/was 
created by/E65 Creation P14/carried out by/E39 Actor(Tango Community)
This would make the community both the creator and performer of the 
intangible heritage: which I believe is the current "best practice".
The timespan of the creation is of course open-ended as these are 
"living" traditions.

HTH
SdS

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:57 PM George Bruseker 
 wrote:


I'd use the term 'forms of life' instead of 'intangible heritage'.
Then the likely closest CRM concept is E5 Event, at least if
you want to be able to associate to actors in any direct way.

E5 Event "Tango" p11 had participant E74 Group.

Probably to be more expressive one would need an extension for
social life!

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:18 PM Christian-Emil Smith Ore via
Crm-sig  wrote:

It is a good question. Also note that documentation of
intangible cultural heritage is in most cases ttangible.
According to UNESCO intangible cultural heritage is defined as

Article 2 – Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention,
1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices,
representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as
the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces
associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some
cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural
heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from
generation to generation, is constantly recreated by
communities and groups in response to their environment, their
interaction with nature and their history, and provides them
with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting
respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the
purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given
solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible
with existing international human rights instruments, as well
as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities,
groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.

2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph
1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains:
(a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a
vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage;
(b) performing arts;
(c) social practices, rituals and festive events;
(d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe;
(e) traditional craftsmanship.

Best,
Christian-Emil




*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of
Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig 
*Sent:* 09 March 2023 14:54
*To:* crm-sig
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object
and E74 Group
In the UNESCO List of World Intangible Heritage many items (=
E28 Conceptual Object) are referred to specific gatherings of
people - commonly named “communities” in 

Re: [Crm-sig] New CRMsci e-vote: label for S23

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

I vote YES, change.

The point is that S23 describes implicitly the simultaneous measurements 
of the contributing parameters, typically two or three, necessary for a 
position determination and the resulting position. The contributing 
measurements may be specified explicitly as parts of it. But the 
resulting position is that at the time of observation *as *the observed 
values suggest, and *not any *calculation of a position of something at 
a different time and place. If the resulting position is calculated at a 
bit later time exclusively from the observed values, is not relevant. 
Modern GIS systems do not give details, but also historical records 
often do not.


E.g. "The position measured by Alexander von Humboldt for the Plaza 
Mayor in Cumaná, Sucre, Venezuela 1799-1800AD (E53) place is defined by 
10°27'52"N 66°30'02"W (Example for P168)." Humboldt refers to the 
measurement only like that "in this night I could observe some stars to 
determine the position of..." and the position. He mentions how he was 
maintaining his clock, one of the best of his time.


Best,

Martin

On 3/4/2023 8:13 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

Many thanks to those of you who voted for the CRMsci examples in the 
last e-vote which will be added to the document.


In the process of discussing these examples with several of you, there 
was a strong view that the current label of S23 Position Measurement 
is confusing. I appreciate that the role of labels is to reminder us 
of the scope note and in general we avoid arguing too much about them. 
I would not normally call for an e-vote on a label, but this is the 
first time that S23 is formalised in a stable CRMsci version so it is 
worth getting it right so that we do not have to change it.


The proposal is to change the label,

from: S23 Position Measurement

to: S23 Position Determination

S23 is not a measurement in the sense of S21. Including the word 
"measurement" in the label will confuse people referring to this class.


Please vote YES if you agree with this change. Please vote NO if you 
disagree giving some rationale.


If we go ahead with this change, it will mean that some editorial 
changes are necessary in other parts of the document for consistency 
which Athina and I are happy to do.


Many thanks for your patience with this version of CRMsci. We are very 
nearly there.


All the best,

Thanasis

___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] New e-vote for CRMsci: examples for position measurement

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

YES!

Martin

On 2/13/2023 8:19 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

Many thanks to those who voted for the CRMsci examples. Also, many 
thanks to Wolfgang who has flagged several inaccuracies with the 
Titanic examples, done deeper research and has provided further 
clarity. Following his review, Athina and I thought it is appropriate 
to send another e-vote out with the more recently proposed changes. 
Apologies for asking for another reading of the examples from you, but 
hopefully this will be the final piece of work for version 2.0. Any 
more issues beyond the specific examples can be raised against version 
2.1 which we will prepare as soon as version 2.0 is ready.


Please vote YES if you are happy with the changes below (any minor 
editorial changes should not stop you from voting YES, we can take 
care of them anyway). Vote NO if you think the examples are not 
appropriate and need further work, with some explanation on what that 
work should be. *Please vote by the end of day Friday the 17th of 
February*.


*S23 Position Measurement*

Added a sentence in the scope note to emphasise that S23 Position 
Measurement is not a sub-class of S21 Measurement:


"This class does not inherit properties from class S21 Measurement."

Revised examples:

    • the measurement of the position of the Titanic for the initial 
distress call after hitting an iceberg (S23) [The iceberg was hit on 
14 April 1912 at 23:40 ship’s time. The subsequent position 
measurement was likely done by Capt. Edward Smith and was transmitted 
15 April 1912 at 00:27.] (Halpern, 2011)
    • the measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph 
G. Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) [done 
between 00:27 and 00:35, when Boxhall showed the coordinates to Smith] 
(Halpern, 2011)
    • the measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert 
Ballard's team after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) (Ballard 
et al., 1987)


*O30 determined position*

Revised examples:

    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic for the initial 
distress call after hitting an iceberg (S23) /determined position/ 
41°44′N 50°24′W (E94). [This was quickly determined via ‘dead 
reckoning’, i.e. based on the distance travelled since the previous 
known location, extrapolating a previous dead reckoning for 14 April 
1912 20:00] (Halpern, 2011, Boxhall, 1962)
    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph 
G. Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) 
/determined position/ 41°46′N 50°14′W (E94). [This was again 
determined via dead reckoning but extrapolating Boxhall's own 
measurement shortly after 20:00, and revised the original position.] 
(Halpern, 2011, Boxhall, 1962)
    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert 
Ballard's team after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) 
/determined position/ 41°43′32′′N 49°56′49′′W (E94). [This was the 
position of the centre of the ‘boiler field’, part of the Titanic 
debris] (Ballard et al., 1987)


*O31 has validity time-span*

Changed scope note opening sentence:

From: "This property associates an instance of S23 Position 
Measurement with the instance of E52 Time-Span for which the 
measurement is valid."


To: "This property associates an instance of S23 Position Measurement 
with the instance of E52 Time-Span for which the measurement is valid 
according to the observer at the time of the observation. "


Revised examples (note these no longer refer to E52 with date/times 
and apart from the ship-wreck discovery event, they refer to the 
collision, not the measurement):


    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic for the initial 
distress call after hitting an iceberg (S23) /has validity time-span/ 
the time of the collision (E52). [This is a plausible guess based on 
Boxhall’s account; the collision was on 14 April 1912 23:40 ship’s 
time.] (Halpern, 2011, Boxhall, 1962)
    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph 
G. Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) /has 
validity time-span/ the time of the collision (E52). [Boxhall was 
convinced of the correctness of his position measurement until his 
death.] (Halpern 2011, Boxhall, 1962)
    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert 
Ballard's team after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) /has 
validity time-span/ the time of the position measurement (E52). [This 
time period falls within the 1st of September 1985 00:48, i.e. the 
first encounter of a piece of Titanic debris and 1987] (Ballard et 
al., 1987)


*O32 measured position of*

Revised examples:

    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic for the initial 
distress call after hitting an iceberg (S23) /measured position of/ 
the Titanic (E22). (Halpern, 2011)
    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph 
G. Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) /measured 

Re: [Crm-sig] New issue: property quantification mismatches

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I think this should go for an e-vote, update to include future 7.1.3.

Best,

Martin

On 2/6/2023 12:41 PM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

There are some properties where the text version and the number version of 
their property quantification do not match. Since both should express the same 
information, either the text version or the number version (or both) must be 
wrong. Martin and I have worked to resolve these cases.

Results:

P10  many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:1,n)
P81  many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n)
P89  many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:1,n)
P99  one to many, necessary (1,n:0,1)
P161  many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n)
P187  one to many, necessary (1,n:0,1)
P188  many to many (0,n:0,n)
P191  many to one, necessary (1,1:0,n)
P198  many to many (0,n:0,n)

Details see here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p4Ew-vKigz5Lm3H69nrlbk2Xfe8gioun87COJmKFfXY/edit#gid=307539608

Best,
Wolfgang


___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] Property quantifications

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Wolfgang,

Yes, property quantifiers can be encoded in FOL, and Carlo Meghini has 
provided a complete list of equivalent statements. The expressions were 
unwieldy and do not provide further inside for the non-expert reader.


Incomplete information is a problem if a property is defined as 
necessary, but is unknown. Ontologically, this property must then exist, 
even it may be unknown. In implementations, it cannot be provided when 
unknown.


Alternative opinions are not ontological. They are what we know, but not 
what is. What makes them alternative is, is that there is no possible 
world in which they can both exist. On their own, they do not constitute 
an impossible world.


Carlo Meghini has written about alternative and negative knowledge.

If you cannot find the respective references, I can search for them.

All the best,

Martin


On 1/13/2023 2:02 PM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

Property quantifications are statements about existence and uniqueness. For 
example, in the quantifier “(1,n:0,1)” the “1,n” is an existence statement 
(“for any allowed x there exists an y”) and the “0,1” is a uniqueness statement 
(“for any allowed y there is at most one x”). These statements can be encoded 
as first-order logic (FOL) axioms.

However, quantifications come with a caveat:


Quantifiers for properties are provided for the purpose of semantic 
clarification only, and should not be treated as implementation 
recommendations. The CIDOC CRM has been designed to accommodate alternative 
opinions and incomplete information, and therefore all properties should be 
implemented as optional and repeatable for their domain and range (“many to 
many (0,n:0,n)”). Therefore, the term “cardinality constraints” is avoided 
here, as it typically pertains to implementations.

What is the ontological status of the property quantifications? Can they be 
encoded as FOL, or not? Incomplete information is not a problem for the FOL. 
Are alternative opinions a problem or are they also only relevant for 
implementations?

For more details see here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11bue0Rakrekmcke-MkZqprfq0FXy5LkRMTl_VDynS5E/edit#

Best,
Wolfgang


___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for CRMsci 2.0

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

I vote YES,

small correction of the first example (the rare bird was observed in the 
southern mountains of the district of Heraklion, not over the city):


"the flight of a male Bearded Vulture observed *near **Loukia, 
*Heraklion, Crete in the morning of the 24^th of October 2020 (E5) 
*[**/Gypaetus barbatus/**, a threatened species in Crete]* (Claes, 2020)"


On 1/5/2023 10:38 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

Happy New Year! Please consider the following for an e-vote. This are 
the pending examples for CRMsci:


*Example for S15 Observable Entity:*

 *

the flight of a male Bearded Vulture observed over Heraklion,
Crete in the morning of the 24^th of October 2020 (E5) (Claes, 2020)

Claes, J. (2020) /Bearded Vulture - Gypaetus barbatus/, 
/Observation.org/. Available at: 
https://observation.org/observation/203043133/ (Accessed: 20 December 
2022).


*Example for S19 Encounter Event:*

 *

the encounter of the marble floor of the Villa of the Papyri in
Herculaneum during the digging of a well in 1750 (S19) (Koekoe, 2017)

Koekoe, J. (2017) ‘Herculaneum: Villa of the Papyri – World History et 
cetera’, 17 January. Available at: 
https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/villa-papyri/ (Accessed: 20 
December 2022).


 *

the encounter of oak planks from a ship during a dig in a mound at
the farm Lille Oseberg in Norway in 1908 (S19) (‘Oseberg Ship’,
Wikipedia, 2022)

‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) /Wikipedia/. Available at: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship=1127078631 
 
(Accessed: 20 December 2022).


*Example for O19 encountered object:*

 *

The encounter of a marble floor during the digging of a well in
1750 (S19) /encountered object /the Villa of the Papyri in
Herculaneum (E18). (Koekoe, 2017)

Koekoe, J. (2017) ‘Herculaneum: Villa of the Papyri – World History et 
cetera’, 17 January. Available at: 
https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/villa-papyri/ (Accessed: 20 
December 2022).


 *

The encounter of oak planks from a ship during a dig in a mound at
the farm Lille Oseberg in Norway, in 1908 (S19) /encountered
object /the Oseberg Ship (E18). (‘Oseberg Ship’, Wikipedia, 2022)

‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) /Wikipedia/. Available at: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship=1127078631 
 
(Accessed: 20 December 2022).


*Example for O21 encountered at:*

 *

The encounter of the Oseberg Shipin 1908 (S19) /encountered at
/the farm Lille Oseberg in Norway (E53). (‘Oseberg Ship’,
Wikipedia, 2022)

‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) /Wikipedia/. Available at: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship=1127078631 
 
(Accessed: 20 December 2022).


*Examples for O31 has validity time-span:*

 *

The measurement of the position of the Titanic by captain Smith
after hitting an iceberg (S23) /has validity time-span/ from 15
April 1912 23:40 to 15 April 1912 00:15(E52) [This was the
time-span between hitting the iceberg and ordering for a distress
signal (time-span A). Captain Smith measured the position during a
time-span B within time-span A. [The two time-spans can be related
with property 'P86 falls within'] (Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph
G. Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) /has
validity time-span/ from 15 April 1912 00:15to 15 April 1912
00:20(E52) [This was valid in a time-span between the 00:15 and
00:20, i.e. duringthe position re-measuringwith more precision]
(Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

The measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert Ballard
after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) /has validity
time-span/ 1 September 1985 12:48 (E52) (‘Wreck of the Titanic’,
Wikipedia, 2022)

Tikkanen, A. (no date) ‘Timeline of the Titanic’s Final Hours’, 
/Britannica/. Available at: 
https://www.britannica.com/story/timeline-of-the-titanics-final-hours 
(Accessed: 8 November 2022).
‘Wreck of the Titanic’ (2022) /Wikipedia/. Available at: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wreck_of_the_Titanic=1118302004 
 
(Accessed: 8 November 2022).


***Example for O25 contains:*

 *

The opal specimen from Jalisco in Mexico (E18) contains the fluid
inclusion of the specimen (S14). (Rentro, 2019)

Rentro, N. (2019) ‘Mexican Opal with Large Fluid Inclusion’, /Gems & 
Gemology/, 55(2), pp. 260–269.

https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/summer-2019-microworld-mexican-opal-large-fluid-inclusion

Please vote YES if you are happy to include these examples, or vote NO 
and explain which ones are not good enough. For minor issues that you 
picked up please vote YES with a note for the 

[Crm-sig] Seasons Greetings

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

Best seasons greetings to all of you, and a Happy New Year, hopefully 
with more peace, more human respect and more awareness of the cultural 
values of all nations. I am hoping to see many of you in our next meetings.


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
 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] new ISSUE: O13 "triggers" scope note

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I think we need to reconsider this. The examples somehow make clear that 
the triggering event to be finished by the time the triggered event 
starts is incidental and not essential the the intended meaning. I now 
support an interpretation that the triggering event is essentially of 
*different nature *from the triggered one. I think we need a 
spatiotemporal *overlap* of the triggering event with the beginning of 
the triggered event. Without diving into STVs,
 it appears to me that /P176 starts before the start of and//P173i ends 
after or with the start of /is the best definition.



In STV thinking, the triggered event should also not contain areas that 
occur locally before all neighbouring areas and do not overlap with the 
triggering event. I.e., and event could start at two different places 
and then merge into one, but only one starting area would be triggered. 
That does not make sense.



best,


Martin

On 12/20/2022 6:49 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
Indeed and the original questions raised were about the phrase in the 
introduction "The association of the two events is based on their 
temporal proximity, i.e. the triggering event ends when the triggered 
event starts." I think the examples mentioned in the scope note 
indicate a temporal relationship of:


P176 starts before the start of

than the agreed:

P182 ends before or with the start of

Even in the case of, say, a spring-loaded mousetrap, it would be 
difficult to tell that the event of stepping on the trip (of the trap) 
is completed before the spring is released.


So we either explain the event splitting approach or opt for the safer 
option of P176.


All the best,

Thanasis

P.S. I think any change would need to go to 2.1.

On 08/12/2022 11:18, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

O13 "triggers" in CRMsci requires the triggering event to be finished 
by the time the triggered event starts. In the example of rainfall 
causing a landslide in the scope note, it would mean that continuing 
rainfall has to be split up into the part before the landslide and 
after the landslide. This is not obvious and needs to be reflected in 
the scope note.


One example for O13 is the 1966 flood in Florence triggering mould 
growth on books stored in flooded library rooms. I read this to claim 
that the mould growth started only after the flood had receded 
completely, which I find a strong claim. However, Steve argued that 
the cited source does not contain information about the mould 
starting to grow while the flood was still ongoing.


Other examples we discussed were:
* an asthmatic in a room full of cats, triggering an asthma attack 
while still being in the room
* an earthquake triggering the destruction of houses: It is not 
realistic to split up the earthquake event into parts for each 
destroyed house.


Best,
Wolfgang


___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] P133 spatiotemporally separated from

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Wolfgang,

Good question!

In order not to confuse things, we cannot make stements about the 
future, in whatever form.


The question about "ongoing" STVs and Temporal Entities of whatever 
kind, be it physical things, periods of events, needs a different 
treatment. The important information to distinguish is, if a temporal 
outer limit is "after the reported observation", or ends with it. 
Currently we cannot distinguish both cases. In the past, I had proposed 
a sort of "infinite" interval, but I think that does not work. May be we 
should use a sub or superproperty of P82b and P81b, a sort of 
"*P82b_before_end_of_the_end*" to report that up to this date, the STV 
or E2 needs not have ended, and "*P81b_before_begin_of_the_end*" to 
report that up to this date, the STV or E2 has not yet ended.


Any more recent report would supersede the previous one.

The problem with P133 as I see it is, that it is a negation, which 
requires a complete observation, or other physical constraints. That is 
not a problem per se, but noteworthy. It is prone to non-monotonic update.


Indeed, my body's STV was "spatiotemporally separated from" the state of 
Japan until 1983, when I went there. Only two ongoing STVs may overlap 
in the future, but this can be trivial.


For many instances of STV, complete observation is not a problem, 
therefore the property appears to be justified.


So, I think the FOL is correct, and we have to discuss this generally 
under negative knowledge.


On 12/17/2022 11:58 AM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

Since we want to deprecate properties such as "has current owner" where true statements 
may become wrong in the future, I was wondering about P133 "spatiotemporally separated 
from". If both STVs are still ongoing, such as the STVs defined by two objects that still 
exist, I think a P133 statement that is correct as of now may become wrong in the future, too. How 
to deal with this? Or is it unlikely that this situation will occur in practice?



If this property holds for two instances of E92 Spacetime Volume then it cannot 
be the case that P132 spatiotemporally overlaps with also holds for the same 
two instances.

P133(x,y) ⇒ ¬P132(x,y)


Furthermore, there are cases where neither P132 spatiotemporally overlaps with 
nor P133 is spatiotemporally separated from holds between two instances of E92 
Spacetime Volume. This would occur where only an overlap of the fuzzy 
boundaries of the two instances of E92 Spacetime Volume occurs and no other 
evidence is available.

(∃x,y) [E92(x) ∧ E92(y) ∧ ¬P132(x,y) ∧ ¬P133(x,y)]
  
If there are two concrete x and y that are not ongoing and where ¬P132(x,y) ∧ ¬P133(x,y) is true, will it always stay true or can it also become wrong in the future, for example when more evidence becomes available?

See above 



The P132 scope note contains the same statements, so the axioms would need to 
be repeated for P132:
P132(x,y) ⇒ ¬P133(x,y)
(∃x,y) [E92(x) ∧ E92(y) ∧ ¬P132(x,y) ∧ ¬P133(x,y)]

Would it make sense to say something like this in the P132 scope note instead: "For 
the relationship with P133 see there"?


Sure, if that helps.

This property is not transitive.

(∃x,y,z) [E92(x) ∧ E92(y) ∧ E92(z) ∧ P132(x,y) ∧ P132(y,z) ∧ ¬P132(x,z)]

(∃x,y,z) [E92(x) ∧ E92(y) ∧ E92(z) ∧ P133(x,y) ∧ P133(y,z) ∧ ¬P133(x,z)]



P133(x,y) ⇒ P133(x,y)

This seems to be an oversight? (Also in P132.)

What is the oversight?

Best,

Martin


Best,
Wolfgang


___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 624, linguistic Appellation

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

I am working on that!

Best,

Martin

On 12/16/2022 11:27 AM, George Bruseker wrote:

Dear both,

I'm too covidy still to follow this in detail but I think the issue 
was left, for the notes to show, for Martin to provide an example to 
show the problem he sees that we cannot see.


Cheers,

George





--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 624, linguistic Appellation

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Robert,

On 12/15/2022 4:57 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


This doesn't meet the requirements, unfortunately.
To my best understanding, and of others on this list, it has not made 
sufficiently clear so far by you which semantics the linguistic 
Appellation should comprise.  Following our methodology, requirements 
must be backed up by representative examples that allow for narrowing 
down the senses to be comprised. The do not come from authority.


Most examples provided so far did not demonstrate the independence of 
the language specificity of the Appellation from the individual 
identified by it, but exactly the opposite. The difference is a matter 
of fundamental logic of semantic networks, and cannot be ignored.


Examples must be sufficiently representative for a large set of data. 
TGN, for instance, is huge, and domainßinstance specific. VIAF refers to 
national libraries, not to languages. "The Big Apple" is a rather rare 
case of a complete English noun phrase used as a place name, which 
exactly fits the scope note of E41. It could be documented as Title. 
Transliteration, you mentioned, does not create a language specificity, 
but a script specificity.


Please respect that it belongs to our method to discuss, if the sense of 
an original submission actually represents the best semantics fit for 
purpose, and to modify it if needed. I simply act here, as any CRM-SIG 
member should, as a knowledge engineer based on the examples you and 
others provided and try to propose the most adequate solution, and not 
to defend any position. I do not have any other project of my own. 
Please stay in your answers on the level of arguments based on 
representative examples and their interpretation.


sdh:C11 is a temporal entity -- the state of being named something -- 
and not a name itself. While interesting, as previously States have 
been widely decreed as an anti-pattern to be avoided, it does not meet 
the requirements set forth for E33_E41, which is that an Appellation 
itself can have a Language.
Indeed I may not describe C11 as a State in the sense we discussed it. 
It is as timeless as all our properties of persistent items. States are 
better avoided if temporal inner bounds are to be given, because they 
require complete observation, a sort of Closed World. This is not the 
case here. But this distracts from the question to what the language 
here pertains.


To repeat, if E33_41 is to enter unmodified CRMbase as you propose, it 
needs a scope note and examples that disambiguate scope and senses.  
Then, *it must* be differentiated from domain-instance specific use, and 
the relevance
of the remaining scope must be argued. All examples must be discussed 
and voted for.


Rather than an anonymous "requirement set forth", I definitely would 
like to see your examples of use of E33_41 in your applications. Is that 
possible? Are you sure they fit the independence from the domain 
instance? Are you sure there will be no abuse in the sense I, Francesco 
and LRM propose?


Best,

Martin


So I believe that this does not solve the problem as stated - that 
E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation does not have a description outside of 
the RDFS document.


Rob


On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 3:54 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
 wrote:


Dear Francesco, dear George,

After the discussion in the last CRM SIG meeting, I propose to
follow Francesco's "sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language
<https://ontome.net/class/365/namespace/3> class." as *a longpath
for P1*.

I propose to generalize the context. It could be a language, it
could be a country, a Group. I propose to analyze, if this can be
mapped or identified with LRM Nomen and its properties. It can
further be made compatible with the RDF labels with a language
tag, which are domain instance specific and not range specific,
and of course can represent the TGN language attributes. For VIAF,
we would need a "national" context, i.e., the national library.

Best,

Martin






On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, 2:43 pm Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig,
 wrote:

Dear Martin, all

Sorry to intervene so late in this interesting exchange, I
was away for some days and I'm going through my emails now.

I encountered the same questions while working a few years
ago in a history project interested in the evolution of the
use of names and surnames.

The approach of the project was similar to the one presented
by Martin below and amounted to saying that it is difficult
to state to which language a first name, or surname, belongs
in itself, except for some cases or if we consider the region
of origin, but what is relevant is that this specific string
of characters is used at a given time (and attested in the
sources) in a language or in another (i.e. in a society
speaking th

[Crm-sig] Issue 624, linguistic Appellation

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Francesco, dear George,

After the discussion in the last CRM SIG meeting, I propose to follow 
Francesco's "sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language 
 class." as *a longpath for P1*.


I propose to generalize the context. It could be a language, it could be 
a country, a Group. I propose to analyze, if this can be mapped or 
identified with LRM Nomen and its properties. It can further be made 
compatible with the RDF labels with a language tag, which are domain 
instance specific and not range specific, and of course can represent 
the TGN language attributes. For VIAF, we would need a "national" 
context, i.e., the national library.


Best,

Martin






On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, 2:43 pm Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig, 
 wrote:


Dear Martin, all

Sorry to intervene so late in this interesting exchange, I was
away for some days and I'm going through my emails now.

I encountered the same questions while working a few years ago in
a history project interested in the evolution of the use of names
and surnames.

The approach of the project was similar to the one presented by
Martin below and amounted to saying that it is difficult to state
to which language a first name, or surname, belongs in itself,
except for some cases or if we consider the region of origin, but
what is relevant is that this specific string of characters is
used at a given time (and attested in the sources) in a language
or in another (i.e. in a society speaking this language) to
identify a person or an object.

To capture the information envisaged in the project in the sense
of this approach I decided to stick to the substance of crm:E41
Appellation class:

"This class comprises signs, either meaningful or not, or
arrangements of signs following a specific syntax, that are used
or can be used to refer to and identify a specific instance of
some class or category within a certain context. Instances of E41
Appellation do not identify things by their meaning, even if they
happen to have one, but _instead by convention, tradition, or
agreement_." (CRM 6.2).

and to add in what has become the SDHSS CRM unofficial extension
the sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language
 class.

This class has as you'll see a clear social, i.e. intentional
flavor, and captures the information that some appellation is
considered as a valid appellation of a thing in a language (i.e.
society speaking his language) during an attested time-span.

This was also an attempt to cope with the frbroo:F52 Name Use
Activity issue:

413 Pursuit and Name Use Activity to CRMsoc


573 CRMsoc & F51 Pursuit & F52 Name Use Activity



which is somewhat slowed down by the ongoing exchanges around the
nature and substance of the social world as foundation of the
CRMsoc extension.

But one could easily provide another substance to an /Appellation
in a Language/ class making it a Name Use Activity (in a Language)
class (and subclass of crm:E13 Attribute Assignment
 or crm:E7 Activity).

This would be in my opinion a good way of coping with the wish
expressed by George at the beginning of this exchange to "make
[this kind of classes] full classes in the standard so that they
are fully vetted and controlled. It is a fundamental class. It
should be in the standard in the first place", wish that I
definitely share. And also to stick, as far as I can understand,
to the modelling principles reminded by Martin.

And it would also finally solve the issues still open, to my
knowledge, concerning the original FRBR-oo class.

Best

Francesco







--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework for Issue 624

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I think this is  a good proposal what concerns the Appellation itself. 
If solves the names of universals and the personal name provenance.
It does however not reflect the appellations for specific instances in a 
given language, such as the ten thousands in the TGN.


The subtle point is that rdf label is private to the domain instance, as 
is LRM Nomen. Therefore the RDF language tags on labels are not on the 
Appellation, but on the link instance, and hence cannot be transferred 
to such a model.


Using a range property instead of a link property is a logical error, 
because it creates non-sensical associations.


Which of all these do we want, and how to model the latter?

Best,

Martin

On 12/6/2022 2:11 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

Reconsidering the whole exchanges in this issue, and the examples, 
notably those by Martin on November 9th, it appears that the 
information we want to model is:


this instance of E41 Appellation (i.e. a name as identifier of an 
entity) is *used* in this language (E56) — formerly or now, this is 
another topic.


So, the simplest solution (as a shortcut of longer ones but making 
sense in the context of the examples brought by George) is to add a 
property:


E41 Appellation --> is (was ?) used in --> E56 Language.

This solution avoids adding persistent item classes, which is somehow 
cumbersome, it copes with the problem and brings the information to 
the conceptual model in a concise and stringent way, without engaging 
in the ontological discussion about the language in which an 
appellation *is* (was created in this language, is used as such, etc. 
etc.).


The substance of the property, given all the examples you brought, 
seems to be quite clear: we can observe (through text and speach acts) 
that an appellation is used in a language as a valid identifier of an 
entity.


Best

Francesco




Le 05.12.22 à 08:51, George Bruseker via Crm-sig a écrit :

Dear all,

Issue 624 can be found here: 
https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-624-add-e33e41linguisticappellation-to-the-official-specification


The discussion revolves around adding a class to the specification 
and not just the rdfs which represents the phenomenon of names being 
in languages.


The homework for the issue can be found in this google doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-l6OrEy8I3doP5cCm5dTzLav6SwE2prxBtpPxpqBhaA/edit?usp=sharing

Best,

George

___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] issue 534Shortcuts, .1-properties and the long paths

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

I agree with:

So we need to add (6)
P125(x,y,w) ⇒ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧  P2(z,y)]

That is, if an activity x, uses things of type y in the mode of w then 
there exists a thing used in x in the mode of w and the type of x is y. 
But now we need to take into consideration that the short path has a 
.1-property and we add

P125(x,y,w) ⇐ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧  P2(z,y)]




On 12/1/2022 12:02 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:
Thank you for your comment. The second argument of the P125 is the 
type of things used in an activity. Still the type of an object is not 
equal to the way such an object is used in an activity. Trilobite 
fossils can be used in the production of a jewellery as a mold. (My 
daughter has one in gilded silver).


This is an argument for a P125.1 mode of use.

The technicalities:
P16(x,z,w) is the current notation for P16.1(x,z,w)

(1) for all w P16(x,z,w) ⇒ P16(x,z)

and we already have declared the axiom
(2) P125(x,y) ⇔ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z) ∧  P2(z,y)]

and (3) below can  be deduced from (1) and (2):
(3) P125(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧  P2(z,y)]

The other way is not so easy since (5) below cannot be deduced from 
(2) since the fact that a specific thing is used in an activity does 
not imply that this thing is used in the mode of used described by 
any instance of E55 Type which would have been the case if (4) were 
universally true.

(4)P16(x,z)  ⇒ P16(x,z,y)
(5) P125(x,y) ⇒ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,y) ∧ P2(z,y)]

So we need to add (6)
P125(x,y,w) ⇒ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧  P2(z,y)]

That is, if an activity x, uses things of type y in the mode of w then 
there exists a thing used in x in the mode of w and the type of x is 
y. But now we need to take into consideration that the short path has 
a .1-property and we add

P125(x,y,w) ⇐ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧  P2(z,y)]

I hope this is correct.
Christian-Emil

*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig 

*Sent:* 30 November 2022 16:11
*To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] issue 534Shortcuts, .1-properties and the 
long paths

OK, ,

If I understand correctly, the "w" should just be propagated in both 
directions. If P125, nothing tells us that the unknown z is the same 
as one possibly in a full path of the same activity. Nothing tells us 
why there should not be more than one "w" for the same z. Is that what 
you mean?


I'd support creating such a P125.1.

Best,

Martin

On 11/30/2022 3:57 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:



B:
Typo: P125  should be P125.1 in the bold phrase.

"The implication from the long path to the shortcut is ok since the 
shortcut has no .1-property. The implication from the shortcut to the 
long path is problematic since there is a .1-property in the long 
path. It is possible to imagine that the shortcut could have a P125.1 
mode of use:E55 Type, but *the range instance of P16.1 and P125.1 
must be identical *so the following additional FOL axiom would have 
to be added:


P125(x,y,w) ⇔ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧  P2(z,y)]"



*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig 

*Sent:* 30 November 2022 14:35
*To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] issue 534Shortcuts, .1-properties and the 
long paths

Dear Christian-Emil,

I agree with your precise analysis, except for:

A)  I'd argue that P138.1 mode of representation is indeed identical 
to P62.1. Simply, similar examples have not been provided.  I suggest 
a FOL for that.


"P138.1 mode of representation   seems to be unrelated to P62.1 mode 
of depiction.


Conclusion

Neither of the .1-properties in the long path are semantically 
related to the .1-property of the shortcut property. Since P62 is 
declared as a shortcut of the long path, it cannot have the .1-property."


I agree that P67.1 is unrelated. The kind of reference of a P138 
instance would be "represents". This is implicit I think in the 
explanation of .1 properties of "has type"-type in the introduction.  
Could be a new issue.


B)

"The implication from the long path to the shortcut is ok since the 
shortcut has no .1-property. The implication from the shortcut to the 
long path is problematic since there is a .1-property in the long 
path. It is possible to imagine that the shortcut could have a P125.1 
mode of use:E55 Type, but *the range instance of P16.1 and P125 must 
be identical *so the following additional FOL axiom would have to be 
added:


P125(x,y,w) ⇔ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧  P2(z,y)]"


I have not understood why "the range instance of P16.1 and P125 must 
be identical ".


E.g., used "passiflora racemosa flower", mode of use "as model", 
(Martin Johnson Heade, "Hummingbirds and Passionflowers", ca 
1870-1883, Museum of Fin

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 609 Homework

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Thanasis

Yes,it is about Issue 610, but it is also an epistemological background 
for an interface to CRMinf (Issue 609), where we would need to study how 
such arguments can be documented.


Best,

Martin

On 11/24/2022 3:17 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
Thank you for this analysis Martin. I would argue that this is for 
issue 610 - I have included it in the working document for that issue 
to discuss.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 22/11/2022 17:43, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

"In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, upon discussing 
the presentation 
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Resources/typed-and-negative-typed-properties-multiple-individuals-and-negation-in-the-cidoc-crm>by 
Thanasis Velios on Typed and Negative Typed Properties, the SIG 
resolved to start a new issue, where to discuss expressing the idea 
that an object has been completely observed and has been dound to 
lack a certain feature. This fact forces a closed-world assumption on 
the object of documentation.


Rome, September 2022"

I have promised to present some ideas we had discussed in the past in 
the context of biodiversity, about observation proving that some 
species is extinct, or in archaeology, about the absence of some 
phenomenon.


Typical examples are the *unnoticed survival* of the sea otter in the 
Monterey area of California in a small bay,


and the so far *unique find* of gears from whole antiquity in the 
Antikythera Mechanism - people would not have put such things in graves.


Another example is the lack of fish bones in Minoan culture - they 
are simply not preserved in the Cretan climate.


The Negative Typed Property states that the domain has no relation to 
*any instance* of the referred *type*.


We can argue, that a reasonable assessment of non-existence should 
imply:


*A)* the respective potential instances must have a reasonable 
likelihood to be *preserved *to the time of observation at least in 
traces.


*B)* the applied method of observation must be suitable to *detect* 
them, in particular traces.


C) the domain instance, the one lacking the relation, must be 
observed with sufficient *density and coverage*.


C1) In case of species, there are arguments about minimal populations 
and the areas they would roam about, so that the observation density 
needs not be complete coverage. Similar arguments may apply to 
archaeological object types.


The issue second to be discussed is the time of validity.

A) Eternal:

 A1) The domain object under investigation has never had such a 
relation since its begin of existence. This is a question of temporal 
coverage, or of proof that traces would still exist, or that that the 
object had not the possibility until the end of observation. These 
senses produce a sort of being "current", up to the time of last 
observation.


 A2) The domain object under investigation has never had such a 
relation since its begin of existence and will not have until its 
end, such as putting wheels on a piece of cloth, or putting leaf 
markers in ancient books in a museum, or in investigating remains of 
past objects or a past activity/ extinct culture, or the *instances 
of the related type* do no more exist.


B) From some time on: The domain object under investigation has lost 
such a relation. This is characteristic for extinction. The species 
cannot be recreated. Similarly for any type with instances that do no 
more exits after the referred time of loss and end of observation.


C) For the period of observation only.

For the time being, we can state that the meaning is always at least 
C), and there may be arguments for more.


If a negative property held before some time, we have to think more 
about it.


Probably, a good practice will be to associate an observation with 
the negative property.



So far my ideas.


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
    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

___
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
 
 Vo

Re: [Crm-sig] issue 534Shortcuts, .1-properties and the long paths

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

OK, ,

If I understand correctly, the "w" should just be propagated in both 
directions. If P125, nothing tells us that the unknown z is the same as 
one possibly in a full path of the same activity. Nothing tells us why 
there should not be more than one "w" for the same z. Is that what you mean?


I'd support creating such a P125.1.

Best,

Martin

On 11/30/2022 3:57 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:



B:
Typo: P125  should be P125.1 in the bold phrase.

"The implication from the long path to the shortcut is ok since the 
shortcut has no .1-property. The implication from the shortcut to the 
long path is problematic since there is a .1-property in the long 
path. It is possible to imagine that the shortcut could have a P125.1 
mode of use:E55 Type, but *the range instance of P16.1 and P125.1 must 
be identical *so the following additional FOL axiom would have to be 
added:


P125(x,y,w) ⇔ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧  P2(z,y)]"



*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig 

*Sent:* 30 November 2022 14:35
*To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] issue 534Shortcuts, .1-properties and the 
long paths

Dear Christian-Emil,

I agree with your precise analysis, except for:

A)  I'd argue that P138.1 mode of representation is indeed identical 
to P62.1. Simply, similar examples have not been provided.  I suggest 
a FOL for that.


"P138.1 mode of representation   seems to be unrelated to P62.1 mode 
of depiction.


Conclusion

Neither of the .1-properties in the long path are semantically related 
to the .1-property of the shortcut property. Since P62 is declared as 
a shortcut of the long path, it cannot have the .1-property."


I agree that P67.1 is unrelated. The kind of reference of a P138 
instance would be "represents". This is implicit I think in the 
explanation of .1 properties of "has type"-type in the introduction.  
Could be a new issue.


B)

"The implication from the long path to the shortcut is ok since the 
shortcut has no .1-property. The implication from the shortcut to the 
long path is problematic since there is a .1-property in the long 
path. It is possible to imagine that the shortcut could have a P125.1 
mode of use:E55 Type, but *the range instance of P16.1 and P125 must 
be identical *so the following additional FOL axiom would have to be 
added:


P125(x,y,w) ⇔ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧  P2(z,y)]"


I have not understood why "the range instance of P16.1 and P125 must 
be identical ".


E.g., used "passiflora racemosa flower", mode of use "as model", 
(Martin Johnson Heade, "Hummingbirds and Passionflowers", ca 
1870-1883, Museum of Fine Arts Boston, 
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/hummingbird-and-passionflowers/LAEr7eIcfErZwg?hl=en-GB=%7B%22x%22%3A0.5%2C%22y%22%3A0.5%2C%22z%22%3A8.643661874326806%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A3.2807205935359844%2C%22height%22%3A1.2375%7D%7D) 

a typical case for the ten thousands of botanical images from European 
botanical researchers in the previous centuries.


Funny example is John James Audubon: He reportedly shot a bird in 1812 
in Pennsylvania, named it "Regulus cuvieri", painted it probably with 
an error in "Birds of America", so that this species was never seen again.


Best,

Martin

On 11/30/2022 1:35 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:


Dear all,

My HW can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kd-zCO8e00WoKWb-9VAm96ECDEA2O_1iFI6kpgcuCnE 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kd-zCO8e00WoKWb-9VAm96ECDEA2O_1iFI6kpgcuCnE>



Best,

Christian-Emil


___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 613 Inverse shortcuts

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Christian-Emil, all,

I think we need to distinguish KB and ontology. Right now, it appears to 
me that


P50 has current keeper, P52 has current owner, P55 has current location'
are knowledge base constructs, whereas our FOLs are ontological per 
definitionem. I believe the better order of reasoning is to question P50 
etc. in an ontology, and not this form of FOL in general.


We repeatedly have defined that KBs have some distinct differences in 
reasoning from the underlying ontology.


Therefore, I regard that 'lefthandside(x,y)⇒ (∃z)[righthandside(x,y,z)]' 
should not be a question of efficiency, but being.


In general, the existence of a real intermediate z is, to my 
understanding, not a topic for trying to find it in the KB. In general, 
such things are not documented, and will never be found. Reasoning, with 
implied unknown instances can be quite different from finding it in a 
KB, e.g., that people had been at a place where such things existed, as 
with the flowers I sent previously.


So, I'd regard this a question of implementation guidelines, exactly as 
we do with the quantifiers, and a reconsideration of P50 etc., rather 
than the FOL.


Opinions?

Best,

Martin


On 11/30/2022 3:02 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:


Under the discussion of issue 616 'shortcuts in P50 has current 
keeper, P52 has current owner, P55 has current location' it became 
clear to me that axioms of the form


'lefthandside(x,y)⇒ (∃z)[righthandside(x,y,z)]'

are not ideal in a KB since the process to  find a possible z is time 
consuming or worse. For an efficiency point of view we should try to 
avoid these constructs.





--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] issue 534Shortcuts, .1-properties and the long paths

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Better reference to the passion flowers:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d=ALiCzsaIy0ppJwiJTFmp90mrKLm1VM67bA:1669814622462=Hummingbird+and+Passionflowers=H4sIAONgFuLUz9U3MC1KKshT4tVP1zc0TM4uS8s2LrbUUspOttIvyywuTcyJTywqQWJmFpdYlecXZRcvYpXzKM3NzcxLT8osSlFIzEtRCEgsLs7Mz0vLyS9PLSoGAIh-wfhh=X=2ahUKEwiZlaabgNb7AhVJs6QKHUxQCjEQtq8DegQIGRAH=1637=989=1.82#imgrc=h3dJnCUjqXZDvM

On 11/30/2022 3:35 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear Christian-Emil,

I agree with your precise analysis, except for:

A)  I'd argue that P138.1 mode of representation is indeed identical 
to P62.1. Simply, similar examples have not been provided.  I suggest 
a FOL for that.


"P138.1 mode of representation   seems to be unrelated to P62.1 mode 
of depiction.


Conclusion

Neither of the .1-properties in the long path are semantically related 
to the .1-property of the shortcut property. Since P62 is declared as 
a shortcut of the long path, it cannot have the .1-property."


I agree that P67.1 is unrelated. The kind of reference of a P138 
instance would be "represents". This is implicit I think in the 
explanation of .1 properties of "has type"-type in the introduction.  
Could be a new issue.


B)

"The implication from the long path to the shortcut is ok since the 
shortcut has no .1-property. The implication from the shortcut to the 
long path is problematic since there is a .1-property in the long 
path. It is possible to imagine that the shortcut could have a P125.1 
mode of use:E55 Type, but *the range instance of P16.1 and P125 must 
be identical *so the following additional FOL axiom would have to be 
added:


P125(x,y,w) ⇔ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧ P2(z,y)]"


I have not understood why "the range instance of P16.1 and P125 must 
be identical ".


E.g., used "passiflora racemosa flower", mode of use "as model", 
(Martin Johnson Heade, "Hummingbirds and Passionflowers", ca 
1870-1883, Museum of Fine Arts Boston, 
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/hummingbird-and-passionflowers/LAEr7eIcfErZwg?hl=en-GB=%7B%22x%22%3A0.5%2C%22y%22%3A0.5%2C%22z%22%3A8.643661874326806%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A3.2807205935359844%2C%22height%22%3A1.2375%7D%7D) 

a typical case for the ten thousands of botanical images from European 
botanical researchers in the previous centuries.


Funny example is John James Audubon: He reportedly shot a bird in 1812 
in Pennsylvania, named it "Regulus cuvieri", painted it probably with 
an error in "Birds of America", so that this species was never seen again.


Best,

Martin

On 11/30/2022 1:35 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:


Dear all,

My HW can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kd-zCO8e00WoKWb-9VAm96ECDEA2O_1iFI6kpgcuCnE 




Best,

Christian-Emil


___
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



--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] issue 534Shortcuts, .1-properties and the long paths

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Christian-Emil,

I agree with your precise analysis, except for:

A)  I'd argue that P138.1 mode of representation is indeed identical to 
P62.1. Simply, similar examples have not been provided.  I suggest a FOL 
for that.


"P138.1 mode of representation   seems to be unrelated to P62.1 mode of 
depiction.


Conclusion

Neither of the .1-properties in the long path are semantically related 
to the .1-property of the shortcut property. Since P62 is declared as a 
shortcut of the long path, it cannot have the .1-property."


I agree that P67.1 is unrelated. The kind of reference of a P138 
instance would be "represents". This is implicit I think in the 
explanation of .1 properties of "has type"-type in the introduction.  
Could be a new issue.


B)

"The implication from the long path to the shortcut is ok since the 
shortcut has no .1-property. The implication from the shortcut to the 
long path is problematic since there is a .1-property in the long path. 
It is possible to imagine that the shortcut could have a P125.1 mode of 
use:E55 Type, but *the range instance of P16.1 and P125 must be 
identical *so the following additional FOL axiom would have to be added:


P125(x,y,w) ⇔ (∃z) [E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z,w) ∧  P2(z,y)]"


I have not understood why "the range instance of P16.1 and P125 must be 
identical ".


E.g., used "passiflora racemosa flower", mode of use "as model", (Martin 
Johnson Heade, "Hummingbirds and Passionflowers", ca 1870-1883, Museum 
of Fine Arts Boston, 
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/hummingbird-and-passionflowers/LAEr7eIcfErZwg?hl=en-GB=%7B%22x%22%3A0.5%2C%22y%22%3A0.5%2C%22z%22%3A8.643661874326806%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A3.2807205935359844%2C%22height%22%3A1.2375%7D%7D) 

a typical case for the ten thousands of botanical images from European 
botanical researchers in the previous centuries.


Funny example is John James Audubon: He reportedly shot a bird in 1812 
in Pennsylvania, named it "Regulus cuvieri", painted it probably with an 
error in "Birds of America", so that this species was never seen again.


Best,

Martin

On 11/30/2022 1:35 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:


Dear all,

My HW can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kd-zCO8e00WoKWb-9VAm96ECDEA2O_1iFI6kpgcuCnE 




Best,

Christian-Emil


___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 616: shortcuts in P50 has current keeper, P52 has current owner, P55 has current location

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I would also suggest to deprecate them, if there is no community 
actively using them. Alternatively, we may think of a general, efficient 
mechanism to assert that a property is still valid? This may go into the 
Situation discussion.


Best,

Martin

On 11/28/2022 2:58 PM, Detlev Balzer via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

I fully agree with Christian-Emil's observation that


The current properties P50, P52 and P55 need external curation and
also break the basic assumption that a CIDOC-CRM KB/database
store accumulate history.

This is a point I had to raise over and over again in discussions about database design: 
there is no notion of "now" if we are dealing with persistent data.


Maybe it is time to get rid of them?

Definitely. The reason why the idea of a "current" state of affairs is so deeply rooted 
in the database world seems to come from the fact that almost any textbook on the subject has silly 
examples such as "student: { name: Carla Jones, age: 23 }".

Best,
Detlev


Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig  hat am 28.11.2022 
12:31 CET geschrieben:


Dear all,
Wolfgang points to the fact that the 'current' properties is not defined in a 
consistent way, which of course they should have been. The textual scope notes 
says 'if and only if' which should be expressed as bidirectional implication, ⇔ 
(equivalence). Below I quite from an email exchange between Carlo and me. This 
may explain the issue:

C-E:
There are several axioms in CRM of the form lefthandside(x,y)⇒ 
(∃z)[righthandside(x,y,z)], which is not a good thing, if I understand you 
right, due to efficient machine reasoning and the time it will take to find a 
needle z in the haystack.

Carlo:

Precisely. The computer enters into a combinatorial examination of cases and 
basically may never come back.

and Carlo writes earlier in his reply, about claiming the existence of some 
individual on the right hand side of the implication:
' it's not outside of the model, it's that we do not know what to do with it, as you 
said, having a bunch of these "unknown" guys in the KB breaks efficiency. I 
understand that efficiency is an engineering issue, but in the end, we are engineers. '

In my earlier days when I worked with formal logic and models, I didn't care 
very much about efficiency. However, I fully understand Carlo and also see the 
point that we formulate the FOL so that it can be efficiently computable. This 
is one reason to drop the bidirectional implication implication in the 
properties P50, P52 and P55.

There is also another issue. The current properties P50, P52 and P55need 
external curation and also break the basic assumption that a CIDOC-CRM 
KB/database store accumulate history. It would have been better if the current 
properties are implemented as named and stored queries with the ting/person as 
argument. The original reason for introducing the current properties was they 
were used in some museum databases in the 1990ies,. Maybe it is time to get rid 
of them?

Best,
Christian-Emil




P50 has current keeper

This property is a shortcut for the more detailed path from E18 Physical Thing 
through, P30i custody transferred through, E10 Transfer of Custody, P29 custody 
received by to E39 Actor, if and only if the custody has not been surrendered 
by the receiving actor at any later time.
FOL:


P50(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [[E10(z) ⋀ P30i(x,z) ⋀ P29(z,y) ]
⋀ ¬ (∃w) [E10(w) ⋀ P30i(x,w) ⋀ P28(w,y)⋀ P182(z,w)]]




P52 has current owner

This property is a shortcut for the more detailed path from E18 Physical Thing 
through, P24i changed ownership through, E8 Acquisition, P22 transferred title 
to to E39 Actor, if and only if this acquisition event is the most recent.
FOL:


P52(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [[E8(z) ⋀ P24i(x,z) ⋀ P22(z,y) ]
⋀ ¬ (∃w) [E8(w) ⋀ P24i(x,w) ⋀ P23(w,y)⋀ P182(z,w)]]




P55 has current location

This property is a shortcut. A more detailed representation can make use of the 
fully developed (i.e., indirect) path from E19 Physical Object,through, P25i 
moved by,E9 Move, P26 moved to to E53 Place if and only if this Move is the 
most recent.

P55(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [ [E9(z) ⋀ P25i(x,z) ⋀ P26(z,y)]
⋀ ¬ (∃w) [E9(w) ⋀ P25i(x,w) ⋀ P27(w,y)⋀ P182(z,w)]]






___ 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Digging for a unknown issue, help needed

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Christian-Emil,

Indeed, as it is it does not work. It is also not reasonable to reduce 
AP5 to modification. This was more a thought exercise. The process is 
less targeted, I think, to the reshaping of a Stratigraphic Unit.


I maintain that it should be subproperty of

O1 <#_O1_diminished>diminished (was diminished by): S10 
<#_S10_Material_Substantial> Material Substantial


and the latter must be declared as one of the properties of CRMsci that 
will not be covered by CRMbase.


In case the complete destruction of the respective unit is to be 
explicitly documented, we would need a double instantiation with E4, I 
think. It's a bit like the chalk on the blackboard, getting smaller and 
smaller. End of existence of the unit may be obvious or border line.


Opinions?

Best,

Martin

On 11/26/2022 12:35 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:


A problem is  that


A1 Excavation Processing Unit
Subclass of:S1 Matter Removal
S4 Observation

S1 Matter Removal
Subclass of: E7 Activity
Superclass of:E80 Part Removal
                S2 Sample Taking

E11 Modification
Subclass of: E7 Activity
Superclass of: E12 Production
E79 Part Addition
                          E80 Part Removal

So  the following cannot be the case in the current models unless we 
make A1 a subclass of  E11 Modification.

AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by)
Domain:A1 Excavation Processing Unit
Range:A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Subproperty of:  P31 has modified (was modified by)

I remember that we had a discussion about this, and may be a decision 
is hidden somewhere.


Best,
Christian-Emil



*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig 

*Sent:* 25 November 2022 18:34
*To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Digging for a unknown issue, help needed
Dear Christian-Emil,

I think it is 469 and 365, as well as the introduction about 
compatibility of extensions:


1A new class or property is added to an extension of the CIDOC CRM, 
which is not covered by superclasses other than E1 CRM Entity or a 
superproperty in the CIDOC CRM respectively. In this case, all facts 
described only by such concepts are not accessible by queries with 
CIDOC CRM concepts. Therefore, the extension should publish in a 
compatibility statement the additional relevant high-level classes and 
properties needed to retrieve all facts documented with the extended 
model. This case is a monotonic extension.



We may argue that AP5 is a modification in any case, even if it ends 
up in complete destruction. Then, the end of existence is however not 
implied. Otherwise, it is a Logical OR of modification and destruction.


Opinions?

Best,


Martin



On 11/25/2022 2:03 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:


Dear all,

In the work with the cleanup of the definition document for 
CRMarcheo, I found a comment (written by myself)  next to



  AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by)

Domain:A1 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gemIVVKyVULkTNT73_iBvV53fjQUM6hYKw_D_tBstKI/edit#heading=h.nmf14n>Excavation 
Processing Unit


Range:A8 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gemIVVKyVULkTNT73_iBvV53fjQUM6hYKw_D_tBstKI/edit#heading=h.2szc72q>Stratigraphic 
Unit


Subproperty of:  P31 has modified (was modified by)


The comment is as follows (17.09.2020):

DECISION: the sig will start a new issue regarding the superproperty 
of AP5. Candidates involve P31 has modified (D: E11 Modification; R: 
E18 Physical Thing). Any decision will affect the definition of A1 
Excavation Process[ing] Unit ( see issue 446).
The new issue should be of a more general interest than the 
particulars of AP5’s superproperty, and address the question of 
declaring superproperties in the CRMbase exclusively (to the extent 
it’s possible) or across family models.
HW: CEO (?) to check the CRMbase properties that generalize to CRM 
extensions. (this is the content of new issue)



Which issue is the 'new issue' referred to?


Best,

Christian-Emil


___
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
 
 Inform

Re: [Crm-sig] Digging for a unknown issue, help needed

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Christian-Emil,

I think it is 469 and 365, as well as the introduction about 
compatibility of extensions:


1A new class or property is added to an extension of the CIDOC CRM, 
which is not covered by superclasses other than E1 CRM Entity or a 
superproperty in the CIDOC CRM respectively. In this case, all facts 
described only by such concepts are not accessible by queries with CIDOC 
CRM concepts. Therefore, the extension should publish in a compatibility 
statement the additional relevant high-level classes and properties 
needed to retrieve all facts documented with the extended model. This 
case is a monotonic extension.



We may argue that AP5 is a modification in any case, even if it ends up 
in complete destruction. Then, the end of existence is however not 
implied. Otherwise, it is a Logical OR of modification and destruction.


Opinions?

Best,


Martin



On 11/25/2022 2:03 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:


Dear all,

In the work with the cleanup of the definition document for CRMarcheo, 
I found a comment (written by myself)  next to



  AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by)

Domain:A1 
Excavation 
Processing Unit


Range:A8 
Stratigraphic 
Unit


Subproperty of:  P31 has modified (was modified by)


The comment is as follows (17.09.2020):

DECISION: the sig will start a new issue regarding the superproperty 
of AP5. Candidates involve P31 has modified (D: E11 Modification; R: 
E18 Physical Thing). Any decision will affect the definition of A1 
Excavation Process[ing] Unit ( see issue 446).
The new issue should be of a more general interest than the 
particulars of AP5’s superproperty, and address the question of 
declaring superproperties in the CRMbase exclusively (to the extent 
it’s possible) or across family models.
HW: CEO (?) to check the CRMbase properties that generalize to CRM 
extensions. (this is the content of new issue)



Which issue is the 'new issue' referred to?


Best,

Christian-Emil


___
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

[Crm-sig] ISSUE 609 Homework

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

"In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, upon discussing 
the presentation 
by 
Thanasis Velios on Typed and Negative Typed Properties, the SIG resolved 
to start a new issue, where to discuss expressing the idea that an 
object has been completely observed and has been dound to lack a certain 
feature. This fact forces a closed-world assumption on the object of 
documentation.


Rome, September 2022"

I have promised to present some ideas we had discussed in the past in 
the context of biodiversity, about observation proving that some species 
is extinct, or in archaeology, about the absence of some phenomenon.


Typical examples are the *unnoticed survival* of the sea otter  in the 
Monterey area of California in a small bay,


and the so far *unique find* of gears from whole antiquity in the 
Antikythera Mechanism - people would not have put such things in graves.


Another example is the lack of fish bones in Minoan culture - they are 
simply not preserved in the Cretan climate.


The Negative Typed Property states that the domain has no relation to 
*any instance* of the referred *type*.


We can argue, that a reasonable assessment of non-existence should imply:

*A)* the respective potential instances must have a reasonable 
likelihood to be *preserved *to the time of observation at least in traces.


*B)* the applied method of observation must be suitable to *detect* 
them, in particular traces.


C) the domain instance, the one lacking the relation, must be observed 
with sufficient *density and coverage*.


C1) In case of species, there are arguments about minimal populations 
and the areas they would roam about, so that the observation density 
needs not be complete coverage. Similar arguments may apply to 
archaeological object types.


The issue second to be discussed is the time of validity.

A) Eternal:

    A1) The domain object under investigation has never had such a 
relation since its begin of existence. This is a question of temporal 
coverage, or of proof that traces would still exist, or that that the 
object had not the possibility until the end of observation. These 
senses produce a sort of being "current", up to the time of last 
observation.


    A2) The domain object under investigation has never had such a 
relation since its begin of existence and will not have until its end, 
such as putting wheels on a piece of cloth, or putting leaf markers in 
ancient books in a museum, or in investigating remains of past objects 
or a past activity/ extinct culture, or the *instances of the related 
type* do no more exist.


B) From some time on: The domain object under investigation has lost 
such a relation. This is characteristic for extinction. The species 
cannot be recreated. Similarly for any type with instances that do no 
more exits after the referred time of loss and end of observation.


C) For the period of observation only.

For the time being, we can state that the meaning is always at least C), 
and there may be arguments for more.


If a negative property held before some time, we have to think more 
about it.


Probably, a good practice will be to associate an observation with the 
negative property.



So far my ideas.


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
 
 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

[Crm-sig] ISSUE 586,557 business model and name

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I propose to name the envisaged new model for business transactions and 
related stuff:


"CRMcom"  , like "communication" and "commercial".

I propose the following Introduction:



 Introduction

This document presents CRMcom, an extension of the CIDOC CRM created to 
support the study of real business transactions, formal and informal 
exchange and transfer of goods and services and related communications 
from all sorts of evidence, in particular via reliable information 
integration from archival material and evidence of the wherabouts of 
respective things. This document describes work which uses and extends 
the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM, ISO21127). The CIDOC-CRM 
definition document should be read before this document. References to 
the CIDOC-CRM in this document are taken from CIDOC-CRM version 7.1.1 
maintained by CIDOC.



   Scope

The classes and properties of the CIDOC-CRM can be used to describe 
events that have taken place in the past, their material context, 
participating entities and, in the case of activities, the general 
influence on and motivations of people as it becomes evident from 
activities. Such events are known to us through observation of the 
events, reports from the past or through observation of the extent 
material evidence that such events have produced. The CIDOC-CRM classes 
and properties, as defined in the CIDOC-CRM version 7.1.1, do not 
include more detailed classes of activities characterizing 
collaborations between social partners in the pursuit of some shared or 
complementary goals. This extensions aims at contributing to the 
documentation of such phenomena, completely within the functional 
specifications of the CIDOC CRM.


Consequently, the theorectical scope of this extension can be described 
as communications and interactions between partners in an exchange of 
material goods, information and services, together with the related 
concepts of the created and resolved social obligations, but also other 
communication, be they related to duties in offices and enterprises, to 
research, scholarship or other interests. Such knowledge can provide 
substantial insight into the economic bases, needs and ambitions of 
individuals, enterprises and whole social groups, their wider 
intentions, needs and hardship and the influence on their decision and 
other activities of any kind.


As practical scope, we refer to commercial account books and archives of 
historical enterprises, exchange of objects between memory institutions 
and/or private collectors, including evidence of illegal trafficking of 
cultural objects, in particular now via Internet, but also any other 
exchange of letters and messages between indivuals of historical interest.


---

*Research questions *are:

Information integration in order to investigate as complete knowledge as 
possible about transactions and communications, in particular message 
exchange, orders and offers, as exemplified by particular cases, in 
order to interpret:


 - commercial relations between partners

- evolution of commerce and flow of goods, at any scale in cultural 
historical context


- provenance of art objects and illicit trafficking

- social networks of partners in business, research or political relations

- economic basis of individuals and groups.

---

*Initial empirical material *for the development of the model:

Publicly accessible archival material from the European SeaLit Project 
(https://sealitproject.eu/one-institution-information/362, i.e., 
logbooks, account books, registration data etc. from commercial ships.


The "Spectrum" data model, instances to be found

Internet data of auctions and other sales offers of archaeological 
objects, in particular suspect items.


Expert opinions, if possible, from the British Museum about illicit 
trafficking.


All partners on this mailing list are kindly invited to look for other 
data that could be used.


Best wishes,

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
 
 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

[Crm-sig] Issue 533 HW, polysemic concepts

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

See Achille's and my homework for Issue 533, to be added to the 
modelling principles as real life example from CRM SIG discussions.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JhXMH3z8FW55XcyQcQ-XNud1jctTQ-naOf6VJuNC70Y/edit?pli=1

--

 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

[Crm-sig] Issue 294 Missing!

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All, am I correct that Issue 294,

"

 * AP29 appears in
 * AP30 restricted to
 * AP31 typical for

was never entered into the CRMarcheo text?

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
 
 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

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

 foundation of the
CRMsoc extension.

But one could easily provide another substance to an /Appellation
in a Language/ class making it a Name Use Activity (in a Language)
class (and subclass of crm:E13 Attribute Assignment
<https://ontome.net/class/13/namespace/1> or crm:E7 Activity).

This would be in my opinion a good way of coping with the wish
expressed by George at the beginning of this exchange to "make
[this kind of classes] full classes in the standard so that they
are fully vetted and controlled. It is a fundamental class. It
should be in the standard in the first place", wish that I
definitely share. And also to stick, as far as I can understand,
to the modelling principles reminded by Martin.

And it would also finally solve the issues still open, to my
knowledge, concerning the original FRBR-oo class.

Best

Francesco








Le 09.11.22 à 20:13, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :

Dear both,

The question was not if names can belong to language, or if
langauges create names. It was how this is unambiguously defined.


The example below is what I feared. The fact that the arabic
script is mainly used for Arabic, does itr make a *transcript *of
an English name "Arabic?" why not Farsi?  I ask here for the
Librarians to express their opinion.

Why is Douglas Adams not "German"? I would use it in German
exactly in this form.

But "Adams" I  think is a last name exclusive to English, as Dörr
to German.

What is the language of "Martin", "Martino",  of

Martin: Identical in English, Spanish, French, Dutch, German,
Norwegian, Danish, Swedish? Martino in Italian, Rumanian?

From Wikipedia: "Joshua".

*Josua* or *Jozua* is a male given name and a variation of the
Hebrew name Yeshua <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua>.^[1]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua#cite_note-1> ^[2]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua#cite_note-2> Notable people
with this name include:

  * Josua Bühler
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_B%C3%BChler>
(1895–1983), Swiss philatelist
  * Josua de Grave <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_de_Grave>
(1643–1712), Dutch draughtsman and painter
  * Josua Harrsch <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Harrsch>
(1669–1719), German missionary
  * Josua Hoffalt <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Hoffalt>
(born 1984), French ballet dancer
  * Josua Järvinen
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_J%C3%A4rvinen>
(1871–1948), Finnish politician
  * Josua Koroibulu
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Koroibulu> (born 1982),
Fijian rugby league footballer
  * Josua Heschel Kuttner
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Heschel_Kuttner>
(c. 1803–1878), Jewish Orthodox scholar and rabbi
  * Josua Lindahl <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Lindahl>
(1844–1912), Swedish-American geologist and paleontologist
  * Josua Maaler <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Maaler>
(1529–1599), Swiss pastor and lexicographer
  * Josua Mateinaniu
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Mateinaniu> (fl. 1835),
Fijian missionary
  * Josua Mejías
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Mej%C3%ADas> (born
1997), Venezuelan footballer
  * Johann Josua Mosengel
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Josua_Mosengel>
(1663–1731), German pipe organ builder
  * Jozua Naudé (disambiguation)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jozua_Naud%C3%A9_(disambiguation)>,
several people
  * Josua Swanepoel
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Swanepoel> (born 1983),
South African cricketer
  * Josua Tuisova <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Tuisova>
(born 1994), Fijian rugby union player
  * Josua Vakurunabili
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Vakurunabili> (born
1992), Fijian rugby union player
  * Josua Vici <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josua_Vici> (born
1994), Fijian rugby union player

Following scripts, only /יְהוֹשֻׁעַ

<https://www.behindthename.com/support/transcribe?type=HB=Y%3Ahwos%5Eu%5E%22a%5E>/
would be Hebrew, but Yeshua
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua> English?


For example,

The language of the name of Douglas Adams (the Person)
that has the symbolic content of "Douglas Adams" is English.
The language of the name of Douglas Adams (the Person)
that has the symbolic content of "دوغلاس آدمز" is Arabic.

These are clearly expressed in a language, and
appellations, and 

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Hi Robert,

No questions the existence of names with a language. I do not remember 
doing that.


I simply try, as often, to teach the group principles.

The scope note for E41 explicitly says:

"Different languages may use different appellations for the same thing, 
such as the names of major cities. Some appellations may be formulated 
*using a valid noun phrase of a particular language*. In these cases, 
the respective instances of E41 Appellation should also be declared as 
instances of E33 Linguistic Object. Then the language using the 
appellation can be declared with the property /P72 has language/: E56 
Language."


May be it is not clear, *what *I am discussing.

*As long *as on the application side, we declare E41_E33 , it is still 
up to the user to decide which sense of linguistic object we apply.


*If* the proposal is to *introduce a new Multiple IsA class* into 
CRMbase, all good practice requires *to write a scope note* and to 
clarify in which sense it is a linguistic object and the property P72 is 
applied. The class instance itself is then associated with the property, 
and not its incidental use.


This is a general ontological principle we apply, sine qua non. If we 
ignore that, we would further create a conflict with P139:


"This property should not be confused with additional variants of names 
used characteristically for a single, particular item, such as 
individual nicknames. It is a directed relationship, where the range 
expresses the derivative or variant and the domain the source of 
derivation or original form of variation, if such a direction can be 
established. "


That was my comment below.

What is your opinion, does anything prevent any name to be used in any 
language?


Therefore, I follow the usual discourse to help identifying ontological 
distinctions.
For instance, https://www.behindthename.com/name/joshua provides 
languages to name variants. This use should definitely be included if we 
decide a new class for CRMbase.


If we decide to include in P72  also a "made for" , or 
"characteristically used by" for E41-E33, we have to describe that. If 
we decide against, we have to decide that. If we are not able to decide, 
we leave the application in the RDFS as is, because it is not mature for 
ontological standardization at an international level, but resolved 
application-wise.


I asked for Farsi, because to my best knowledge, Iran uses the Arabic 
script. Therefore a transcription of Douglas Adams to Arabic script 
equally applies to Farsi and Arabic. As such, it would not be "Arabic".


I hope that makes my reasoning clearer.

All the best,

Martin

On 11/10/2022 8:45 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Hi Martin,

No one is proposing anything other than P72. Please stop creating 
issues where none exist :)


"The Big Apple" is a name for the Place which is also known as "New 
York City".
Does anyone disagree that "The Big Apple" is in English with the 
precise semantics of P72, or that it is not a Name for that Place?


Rob


On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:31 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
 wrote:


Dear Gordon,

"The Library of Congress has only recently stopped assigning
gender to the referant of a name",

That is interesting!

I'd kindly ask for your expert opinion, about the "language" of a
name.

We had introduced the language property of a title because of the
frequent cases of words of a natural language and their translations.

Here, my question is:

A) In library practice, do you associate a name with a language,
and what would be the rules.

George wrote: "He has a transliterated name: Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad
Ibn ʾAḥmad Ibn Rušd . Is that his name in Arabic or English or no
language? I don't know. Both? Maybe. I'm not a scholar of
philosopher's names and it's not my province to judge. This is not
the domain of the ontologist but the specialist in onomastics or
the appropriate discipline. "

I absolutely disagree with that. Can transliteration to another
script change and produce a language-specificity? That is
definitely an ontological question. Otherwise, we have no concept
at all for this property.

My example of Joshua had another purpose: The spelling and
pronunciation "Josua" is the one used in German, but not
exclusively. "Joshua" in English (and?), may be Yeshua
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua> in Hebrew written in Latin
script? If this is the case, they are variants shaped and used in
different language groups. That would justify a language-specificity.

B) If the meaning of the language property we are seeking for is
not the language of the name, but the suitable use in a language
group of the name for the named instance, then, it is a
subproperty of P1 and not P72. Such as "is typic