Dear Martin, all, An RDF interpretation of CRM is an implementation like any other implementation, for example in a relational database formalism. My impression has been that the FOL description should be authoritative in the sense that there has to be what we may call a mapping/implementation function from the FOL description to an implementation of CRM preserving the validity. ? The FOL description should be carefully expressed. As it is now, iti s a valid statement in the FOL theory that every instance is a primitiv value.
Could you, please, give me a pointer to what is the current description of the implementation (interpretation) of CRM in RDF? Best, Christian-Emil ________________________________ From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> Sent: 24 March 2019 16:52 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] E1 CRM Entity, E59 Primitive Value described in FOL, OWL, DL , a discussion for geeks among us(?) 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<mailto: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<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
