Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear Francesco, dear Gordon, Thank you very much! It also appears to me that a large part of the semantics we are discussing is property of the relation between a particular and a name and not the name. The LRM Nomen has consequently modelled LRMoo, as  "F12 Nomen Subclass of: E89

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Here is fun example of linguistic object which I guess challenges p72 but is still actually diaskedastic and perithoric to our enterprise, brought to you by the great zolotas https://youtu.be/2XAcuxFqk9k In what language is it? In what language is this email? And is it in our capacity as

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

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

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

All   Back to the language characteristics of names and titles ...   First, to recap more detail about the LRMer and RDA treatment of 'names'.   The LRMer uses the class Nomen, defined as "An

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

I agree. This is p72: This property associates an instance(s) of E33 Linguistic Object with an instance of E56 Language in which it is, at least partially, expressed. A mountain is surely made of a molehill here. Can a name be expressed in a language? Yes. Can someone and recognize this and

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

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

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

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

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

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

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

All   A librarian expresses an initial opinion:   What about gender of a name? E.g. "Gordon" is male; "Gordana" is female. The Library of Congress has only recently stopped assigning gender to the referant of a name, which has

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Unsurprisingly, I agree with George. The quantification of P72 has language is many to many, necessary. Meaning that a Linguistic Object can have many languages, and each Language can be the language of many Linguistic Objects. So, if you wanted to say that my name is "Robert Sanderson", and

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear Martin, I don't see an ontological problem here. One name can be used by / in many languages. If it is, that can be documented. > The question was not if names can belong to language, or if langauges > create names. It was how this is unambiguously defined. > It isn't our job as

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

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?"

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

or to put it another way, if one only lived in a world of CRMese and knew nothing else about the world in itself, understanding what E33_E41 is is just a question of understanding what E35_Title is and then taking the conceptual leap that it can be applied to E1. That's it! Names, in a language,

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear both, I have to agree with Robert, I basically can't even conceive how this is an argument. Obviously names come in languages MOST of the time. This is a basic feature of living in a human society, is it not? Is this not a base experience of being embodied as a human being that we all

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

To re-merge the threads, apologies for the duplication... The language of an E33_E41 is the language in which the linguistic content of the entity is expressed, per P72_has_language. For example, The language of the name of Douglas Adams (the Person) that has the symbolic content of "Douglas

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear All, I would like to focus on the semantic questions wrt E33_E41. Would it be well defined? Please remember, that there were implementation arguments against multiple instantiation, not semantic ones. Therefore, we decided to solve the problem in the implementation side. Why the unlucky

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Hi Carlo, To my thinking, while intellectually that would be the neatest of solutions, pragmatically it would be a huge problem not only for system developers who rely on the continuity of CRM but also socially and politically in terms of the CRMs embeddedness in the museum community and its

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear Mark, all, why not, then, have a domain-independent CRM core and an extension for museum documentation, perhaps generalized to CRMCH or something like that? Apologies if this proposal is already on the table and I missed it. Modularity at the core would sort out agendas, keeping

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear all, I fully agree that we must follow the principles of the ontology development and remove classes that do not fulfil the criteria of being classes in CRM Base. But, in my opinion, for specific classes of this kind (that they seem not to fulfill the criteria because they don't have

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear all, Thanks Paulos for pointing out the principle under discussion. As this unexpectedly lively debate over a simple request for clearly documenting in the standard a central and useful class has illustrated, the principle in question appears ill formulated or incomplete since it sets a

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear all, while I must agree with Rob that the three classes he proposed for deletion are not a particular best pratice in ontology building from a semantic point of view, I don't feel good with the direction the CRM is going currently. At our museum we are following the CRM because it is the

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Thank you for the clarification, Martin! I have proposed the justifications for deleting three further classes that do not, I believe, fulfil the criteria of being classes in CRM Base. And indeed, let us judge these objectively and by the given criteria, rather than subjective and personal

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

...apologies for writing piecewise! Here some arguments for and against a Linguistic Appellation: A) In order for an Appellation to become language specific, does it need some special traits?    Can an Identifier become language specific? A place primitive?    If not, there must be more to

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear All, Apologies, I missed some messages in this thread.... Indeed "Human-Made Feature" is an interesting case. I prefer to review the arguments for Human-Made Feature, Human-Made Object. They are actually more complex, because feautures and objects differ wrt to Move, "bears feature"

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear All, I just want to remind that we have a principle explicitly in the introduction of the CRM not to add classes without distinct properties of their own which is sufficiently relevant. By this, we purged a lot of very useful classes from the CRM, because it is "base". I prefer not to

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear George and Robert, Your comments are well taken and understood. I do not take a position against or for the addition of this class (I'm not yet sure of either decision), nor I support that "rules" must be always respected. I just tried to find a good reason for not having already introduced

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

The section on Minimality outlines when new classes are declared and it includes: "It serves as a merging point of two CIDOC CRM class branches via multiple IsA (e.g., E25 Human-Made Feature). When the branch superclasses are used for multiple instantiation of an item, this item is in the

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Hi Pavlos, I understand that principle, I am contesting it. There is another principle which is handle obvious cases in the domain. I hold that that principle has greater importance here. Cheers G On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 3:59 PM Pavlos Fafalios wrote: > Dear George, > > To my understanding

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

I agree with George that this should be added. There are plenty of cases of classes without additional properties that serve only to join two parent classes. For example E22_Human-Made_Object, E25_Human-Made_Feature, and E34_Inscription. There are also remaining leaf nodes with no properties with

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

It's like we inverse the 80 / 20 principle and we choose to solve only 20% of the problem and let the other 80% be a workaround. But the 80% is where the actual information / people are at. On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 4:56 PM George Bruseker wrote: > Hi Pavlos, > > I understand that principle, I am

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear George, To my understanding (without having been involved in the relevant discussions about having the E33_E41 class in the RDFS but not in CRM), and according to the discussion in issue 363 , classes that use to

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

It's not really though. In the majority of cases when you talk about a name you need to talk about a language too. Especially if CRM wants to be inclusive etc. We have a subclass 'title' of appellation that does allow but it only works for inanimate objects. So it is useless as a general case. The

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Thank Elias, You are definitely right that it is ok in the actual doc but mis referenced in the xml commentary. My point is not that the RDFS is wrong and it is great that it is produced and solid. I am more interested in how NOT having legitimate classes in the standard but compromising and just

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear George, The rdfs defines 1 such class using just 1 name the ‘E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation’. The second name reference you are referring to ‘E41_E33_Linguistic_Appellation’ exists only in the XML comments of the rdfs file. There has been a discussion and decision about the correct

[Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear all, There are two references to the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33 that allows you to talk about the language of a name (which is a super common requirement... actually almost always necessary). I can't give you it's official name because I dont know because it isn't in the spec