Dear Dan,
This is a deep methodological question:
"True that crm:E19_Physical_Object "includes all aggregates of objects",
but I feel the need of something like crm:Fx_Assemblage between
crm:E19_Physical_Object and E78_Collection, because I would like to make
a clear (conceptual) distinction between:
<helmet> <crm:Py_is_component_of> <armor> or <coin> <
crm:Py_is_component_of > <hoard>
and
<wheel> <crm:P46i_forms_part_of> <car>"
This is not what we have made the CRM for. You SHOULD not make such a
distinction,
if there is no use case that would create query ambiguity. CRM is not a
language to describe the nuances of cultural heritage objects. Since a
hoard cannot have parts like a car, and a car not parts like a hoard,
the distinction does not help in any query.
We all must be clear that the CRM is made ONLY for searching possibly
related things across disciplines in a global network of knowledge.
People don't use the CRM because it has already 150 properties. It is
absolutely counterproductive to introduce more. Already,
it is impossible to write queries using all 150 properties without long
preparation.
My position is, in order to capture the nuances of cultural heritage, we
should write good scholarly texts, and not admire the brave new world of
formal ontologies as the future scholarly language.
We must be absolutely clear that the wish of each scholar to make a
clear (conceptual) distinction is not an argument for the CRM. If it
would be, we would now, after 18 years,
struggle with millions of distinctions, and no chance people to
understand the whole.
Only clear functional requirements that a search statement would become
ambiguous or return too much noise is an argument.
Opinions?
Secondly, the reasons why we have decided not to introduce a
"crm:Fx_Assemblage" is because for many things it is undecidable, if
something is an assemblage or not. If you propose, you should provide
evidence of the decidability. Further, no distinct property necessary
for querying could be identified.
To make clear: I do not want to dominate the discussion. We have built
the CRM because we had such principles. It is overdue to write them
down. If E78 is problematic, if other senses of part_of are needed, if
"crm:Fx_Assemblage" is adequate, must be a COMMON agreement that we
apply the same principles.
If you agree that these my arguments above are a correct application of
these principle, and if you then disagree with the principles, we have
to discuss the principles and not the E78. If you find that I wrongly
apply the principles, we all should be happy to receive new issues to
the CRM.
Opinions?
Cheers,
Martin
On 1/12/2014 3:17 ??, Dan Matei wrote:
Hi, dear Vladimir
Here is what I replyed to Martin (or you see the list ?):
-------------------------------------
Well, crm:E78_Collection attracts so much attention either because it
is important or it has problems, or both :-)
(Second thought: we can say that the guy burying a hoard had a
"collection development plan": he planed to "develop", the hoard,
retrieving it after some time and spending the coins :-)
True that crm:E19_Physical_Object "includes all aggregates of
objects", but I feel the need of something like crm:Fx_Assemblage
between crm:E19_Physical_Object and E78_Collection, because I would
like to make a clear (conceptual) distinction between:
<helmet> <crm:Py_is_component_of> <armor>
or
<coin> < crm:Py_is_component_of > <hoard>
and
<wheel> <crm:P46i_forms_part_of> <car>
So, I would like a crm:Fx_Assemblage exactly for the reason you
invoke: "We should only use a more specific class, if we expect the
respective additional properties to be relevant for querying.".
-------------------------------------
I'm still in doubt...
Best,
Dan
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
