Dear Christian-Emil,
Indeed it appears now that the Primitive Values are not as separate as
initially conceived. Please check against the interpretations we give in
the RDF implementation guidelines. On the other side, E59 instances do
not have identifiers of their own as E1 instances have. But wrt the FOL
description, Carlo should have an opinion:-)
On 3/24/2019 12:57 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
E1 CRM Entity and E59 Primitive Value are the only classes in CRM
without a superclass. I assume we can imply from this that the two
classes are disjoint.
In the CRMcore definintion the FOL descriptions are
E1 CRM Entity:
E1(x)
E59 Primitive Value:
E59(x)
The FOL descriptions in CRM are open expression with an implied
universal quantifier. This is ok but not very informative for E1(x) =
"all x. E1(x)" expresses the idea that everything we talk about are
instanses of the universal class E1 CRM Entity.
The E59(x) = "all x.E59(x)" blurs the picture and indicate in a FOL
description of CRM that everything is a primitive value. It is ok
to have the E59(x) as a predicate, but "all x.E59(x)" cannot be an
axiom. We can solve this by removing the FOL description of E59.
Opinions?
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
