Dear All, Property quantifications are statements about existence and uniqueness. For example, in the quantifier “(1,n:0,1)” the “1,n” is an existence statement (“for any allowed x there exists an y”) and the “0,1” is a uniqueness statement (“for any allowed y there is at most one x”). These statements can be encoded as first-order logic (FOL) axioms.
However, quantifications come with a caveat: > Quantifiers for properties are provided for the purpose of semantic > clarification only, and should not be treated as implementation > recommendations. The CIDOC CRM has been designed to accommodate alternative > opinions and incomplete information, and therefore all properties should be > implemented as optional and repeatable for their domain and range (“many to > many (0,n:0,n)”). Therefore, the term “cardinality constraints” is avoided > here, as it typically pertains to implementations. What is the ontological status of the property quantifications? Can they be encoded as FOL, or not? Incomplete information is not a problem for the FOL. Are alternative opinions a problem or are they also only relevant for implementations? For more details see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11bue0Rakrekmcke-MkZqprfq0FXy5LkRMTl_VDynS5E/edit# Best, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
