Dear Francesco,
I support very much your arguments. I currently see at least 5 distinct
cases, I'll summarize the next days.
Just a quick remark: Please do not use the label "general" in this
sense: "has_general_activity **.", because we
have conflicting interpretations, and this is an open
Dear George, Martin, Rob, all
Thank you for this very interesting and relevant discussion which
definitely belongs to CRMsoc. I'd kindly ask those who can, to create an
issue in the CRMsoc documentation, with these emails, in order to make
this discussion more accessible. Also, in my opinion,
Dear All,
This may find your interest:
F. Steimann. On the representation of roles in object-oriented and
conceptual modelling.Data& Knowl-edge Engineering35(1): 83–106, 2000.
This is a back ground paper of the current CRMbase approach.
I found these, but have not yet read in detail:
Dear Jim,
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. So, do I read your modelling
correctly that you make of a role class that is a subtype of E74 group, or
do I not read that right? If so it reminds me of the solution come up with
by a group that made what they called CRMbio (I can't find the
Dear Martin,
Thank you for your feedback. Here are some follow up reflections.
> So next potential solution. I think that p14.1 in the role of, won't cut
> it, because that would only point to a role 'diplomat' 'conceptual
> modeller' whatever. This does not create the relation to the instance
Dear George, All
Here some more analytical thoughts:
On 4/14/2020 6:47 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
Dear all,
Here is a minor modelling issue which may or may not find your
interest in these times of quarantine. The modelling conundrum is the
following:
Sometimes in an activity, the
Hello Fellow SIG Members,
I have been a SIG member for over five years, silent other than my introductory
comments upon requesting membership, content to listen and learn from this list
while watching the evolution of the CRM. As a post-cancer #PayItForward indie
#CitizenScientist, I leave
Hi Rob,
Here's why I'm not sure about these two solutions:
> Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think the event partitioning pattern is not so
> unreasonable…
>
>
>
> a Activity ;
>
> label “all of the activities of Takin Solutions” ;
>
> carried_out_by .
>
>
>
> a Activity ;
>
> label
Dear Robert, All,
Yes, I support this interpretation. There is a question of monotonicity
of things described at the Group level with things described
individually. This is more important than differentiation between the
Group and the individual acting on behalf of it. Can be more detailed
Hi Pierre,
Thanks a lot for your thoughts.
I agree your proposal sounds like a viable solution to my use case. The
idea is not exactly like the sub-activity for breaking down role (which
DOREMUS did so well and which Linked.Art adopts as a principle) but, rather
that there is a new kind of
Hi George, hi all,
What about a "Representation Activity", subclass of E7 Activity, that would be
"carried out" by the Actor "representing" a Group "in the frame of" another
activity ?
Let's say George has 2 activities A1 and A2. Only A2 is carried out as some
sort of representation activity.
Dear all,
Here is a minor modelling issue which may or may not find your interest in
these times of quarantine. The modelling conundrum is the following:
Sometimes in an activity, the activity is carried out by a named individual
but it is carried out on the behest of an organization or someone
12 matches
Mail list logo
