It is easy to specify a property value whose subject is a Property - this is just a simple case of OWL 2 punning. However this is not the same as applying a property to a triple, or to specify properties of properties.
Sometimes the problem is the inability of rdf to handle predicates with more than two arguments. Thus a predicate that would requires three arguments must be reified; in a different ontology language the three argument predicate could be expressed directly. In other cases, the predicate may not have a finite arity. This is the problem that Davidson was addressing with reified events. Some ontology languages allow for an entirely different kind of properties of properties. Languages like CycL, Common Logic, and KIF allow you to define predicates that take other predicates as arguments. These systems are not true 2nd order logics, as they restrict the range of predicates to those explicitly mentioned, but they allow things like reflexivety or transitivity of various kinds to be expressed in the language, rather than requiring such concepts to be primitive. This kind of expressivity can be very useful when trying to express how various properties of an item in a collection might be derived from properties of the collection (or vice versa). This is especially useful when combined with modal, probabilistic, or non-montonic reasoning (for example, many properties of a FRBR item can be derived from its manifestation ; however some items may differ from the prototype - pieces may be missing, or the copy signed). Simon On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 3:30 PM Dan Matei <danmate...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > So, the PCxxx classes are a just a contortion of properties. I guess they > are useful only because rdfs and owl do not accept properties as domains. > There are other practical uses of them ? > > Since I do not care much about RDF, the tuples in my database are > something like: > > <id> <subjectId> <predicateId> <.1 predicateQualifierId> <object> > <provenanceId> > > > If the <object> is a crm:E62_String, then I have also <language>. > > If the <object> is a crm:E60_Number or a crm:E61_Time_Primitive, I also > have <relatorId> (e.g. =, <= etc. circa, ante, nonpost etc.) and > <measurementUnitId>. > > Thus every predicate can have at least one .1 property. But I also can say > (simplified): > > > <#1> <#EiffelTower> <#P43_has_dimension> <#height> <#circa> "300" <#m> > <#me:2016-02-04> > > <#2> <#1> <#isDoubtful> "true" <#me:2016-02-04> > > > When I will have to (when ?), I hope I will be able to do a decent json-ld > serialization. > > It is (too) heretical ? > > > Dan > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 22:37, martin <mar...@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > >> Hi Dan, >> >> The "PCXXX" classes are exactly the suitable formalism you ask for., >> graph-topologically equivalent to the reification. >> We must not confuse the syntactic pattern, which is the same for the >> PCXXX solution, the annotation >> and the reification, with the intended meaning ;-) . >> >> Cheers, >> >> Martin >> >> >> On 3/2/2016 8:58 μμ, Dan Matei wrote: >> >>> Despite the fact that I'm always told that reification is not >>> recomanded, I decided to "piser contre le vent" :-) >>> >>> Functionally, the reification is just natural. Proof: the "invention" of >>> .1 properties in CRM. >>> >>> Aaa, if the formalisms we have do not handle it well, please invent a >>> suitable formalism, my dear friends. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Dan Matei >>> consultant (documentaristică, biblioteci digitale), >>> Fundația Gellu Naum, >>> [Institutul Național al Patrimoniului] >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: martin <mar...@ics.forth.gr> >>> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 20:09:26 +0200 >>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling .1 properties >>> >>> Dear Simon, >>>> >>>> Our messages crossed, your analysis is correct! We have discussed >>>> however, that reification or annotation is not recommended, rather an >>>> introduction of a node (class) representing a triary property rather >>>> than >>>> an individual entity. From the existence of an instance of >>>> PC14_carried_out_by we can automatically infer >>>> the instance of P14, as described in the formalization. >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> martin >>>> >>>> On 3/2/2016 7:55 μμ, Simon Spero wrote: >>>> >>>>> The first order formalization given in the crm document are: >>>>> >>>>> P14(x,y,z) ⊃ [P14(x,y) ∧ E55(z)] >>>>> >>>>> Note that the predicate on the left hand side has three arguments, >>>>> which is more arguments than rdf is comfortable with. >>>>> >>>>> The "in the role of" property is modifying an instance of a "carried >>>>> out by" property. >>>>> An activity can be carried out by several different agents, each in a >>>>> different role, so the property cannot be attached directly to the >>>>> activity. >>>>> >>>>> There are several possible ways of representing this using semantic >>>>> web tools. >>>>> >>>>> The first approach is to use RDF reification. I am not going to say >>>>> anything more about this. >>>>> >>>>> If you are using OWL 2, you can add an annotation each "carried out >>>>> by" property assertion. This is not ideal, as annotations are not >>>>> really supposed to be part of the data in the model, and most >>>>> reasoners ignore them. They are also not easy to work with in RDF. >>>>> >>>>> A third approach is to define your own class for reification, >>>>> representing an instance of a "carrying out" ; this class would have >>>>> properties relating the activity, the agent, and the role. >>>>> >>>>> The best approach may be to define a sub property of P14 for each type >>>>> of carrying out in a role which is relevant to your model. >>>>> You can specify the role associated with all uses of this property >>>>> using a property whose subject is the subproperty. >>>>> >>>>> Simon >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 3, 2016 10:01 AM, "Allison Miller" >>>>> <allison.mil...@sysemia.co.uk <mailto:allison.mil...@sysemia.co.uk>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I wish to use the CIDOC CRM but need a formal model to do so and >>>>> have a question concerning .1 properties. >>>>> >>>>> eg. E7 Activity has: P14 carried out by (performed): E39 Actor and >>>>> (P14.1 in the role of: E55 Type) >>>>> >>>>> It is a property I need to use - but I can’t work out how to >>>>> model it! >>>>> >>>>> I thought I could use the Erlangen OWL implementation, but I can’t >>>>> find these properties in it. (That’s not to claim they aren’t >>>>> there, my knowledge of OWL is limited.) >>>>> >>>>> I would welcome any guidance on P14.1, and other .1 properties, in >>>>> the Erlangen implementation, or advice on including them in a >>>>> definition compatible with Semantic Web technologies if anyone has >>>>> done this. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Alli >>>>> >>>>> E-mail: allison.mil...@sysemia.co.uk >>>>> <mailto:allison.mil...@sysemia.co.uk> >>>>> >>>>> Web: www.sysemia.com <http://www.sysemia.com/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sysemia Limited >>>>> >>>>> The Innovation Centre, Bristol & Bath Science Park, Dirac >>>>> Crescent, Emerson's Green, Bristol BS16 7FR >>>>> >>>>> Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 7555456 >>>>> >>>>> DISCLAIMER >>>>> >>>>> Information contained in this e-mail is intended for the use of >>>>> the addressee only, and is confidential and may also be >>>>> privileged. If you receive this message in error, please advise us >>>>> immediately. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note >>>>> that any form of distribution, copying or use of this >>>>> communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and >>>>> may be unlawful. Attachments to this e-mail may contain software >>>>> viruses which may damage your systems. Sysemia Ltd have taken >>>>> reasonable steps to minimise this risk, but we advise that any >>>>> attachments are virus checked before they are opened. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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 | 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 | >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 | >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Dan Matei > consultant (documentaristică, biblioteci digitale), > Fundația Gellu Naum, > [Institutul Național al Patrimoniului] > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
