The issue in question is 340: https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-340-classes-without-properties
Discussed at SIG meetings 39, 41, and 43. Whereby the classes in question were kept under this clause: It can be useful as a leaf class (i.e. at the end of a CRM branch) to domain communities building CRM extensions or matching key domain classes from other models to the CRM (e.g. E34 Inscription). I propose that being able to Name things with a Linguistic Appellation that is not an E35 Title is critically important to all domain communities and matches classes from other models. People, Places, Concepts and many other fundamental entities have Names in languages which are not Titles. Therefore it falls within the scope of CRM Base. The substance of the class is that humans name specific instances with different names in different languages. The Name is expressed in a Language, exactly in the same way as other uses of P72. If E33_E41 doesn't have substance, then I find it hard to see how E35 is substantive either -- E35 is a more restrictive version of E33_E41 through its scope note, as can be seen by the identical super-classes. Rob On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 8:59 AM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Dear Robert, All, > > To my best knowledge, Title, Site and Inscription had been on the list of > classes potentially to be deleted, when the current principles for > minimality had been formulated. The respective decision not to delete is > documented in some minutes. It was extensively discussed and voted. > Following our rules, this decision can only be undone in a new issue, if > new, different evidence is provided. This rule is to ensure some continuity > for a standard, and economy of work. Currently, I see no new evidence. > > Best, > > Martin > > On 11/8/2022 10:33 PM, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote: > > > I propose that E35 Title also does not legitimately rise to the > requirements of being a named class in CRM Base. > > In particular: > > * It does not have its own properties > * While it is the range of P102, P102 is indistinguishable semantically > from its super-property, P1. Read the scope notes and replace "title" with > "name" and it comes out the same. If that is *not* the case, then we would > need a property that relates E1 and E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation, at > which point we would need to give a number of E33_E41. > * It can be replaced without semantic loss by > E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation, perhaps further clarified by the addition > of domain specific vocabulary (supplied title vs artist's title) using > P2_has_type > * It does not have any sub-classes. > > And so, it can safely be deleted. > > Rob > > -- > Rob Sanderson > Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata > Yale University > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing > listCrm-sig@ics.forth.grhttp://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 > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
