Hi all,
I would argue that the safest thing to do is to make the PCs a subclass of
E1 and then see where we go from there. I agree with Martin that it can't
be an information object (because everything would be then) but I imagine
we would have a debate about what each .1 actually ontologically is. What
is certain is that by virtue of the fact of being something said in the
universe of CIDOC CRM it is something sayable / mentionable. This is what
E1 gives us, the most vague point of an object that can be pointed to and
named, possibly classified. The problem is right now that we have something
that is sayable in CIDOC CRM (PCxxx) but it is not referenceable. But this
is a logical contradiction. Everything that can be said can be referenced
and PCxxx can definitely be said.
For example, if I say that Bob was involved in the Production of Mona Lisa
as Creator then this is something said / stated that is important, that has
a real world referent, which has a definite meaning which is true or false
etc. Ergo, it requires provenance. The basic mechanism for provenance in
CRMbase is E13 and indicates that there was an agency behind something
being asserted of something else.
Here the thing we want to talk about is the role and the role IS an
instance of PC14. It's already an instance of a class so it should be
referenceable. (Also one might like to put a bibliography for people who
thought that Bob was Creator of Mona Lisa etc.)
So I would go exactly for Paulos' modelling but with this change:
:painting_sistine_chapel
crm:P01i_is_domain_of :role_of_michaelangeo_in_sistene_chapel_project
:role_of_michaelangeo_in_sistene_chapel_project
a crm:PC14_carried_out_by ;
crm:P02_has_range :Michelangelo ;
crm:P14.1_in_the_role_of :master_craftsman .
:attrAssign1
a crm:E13_Attribute_Assignment ;
crm:P140_assigned_attribute_to
:role_of_michaelangeo_in_sistene_chapel_project
... ... ...
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 10:42 AM athinak <athi...@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> Dear George, all,
>
> I am not sure that the class PC0_Typed_CRM_Property should be a
> subclass of E1. In my understanding, this class implies a situation
> concluded in an epistemological context. I am also not sure if the
> provenance we are looking for in this set of statements is a kind of
> E13. I am just wondering.
>
> BRs,
> Athina
>
>
> On 2023-03-29 16:36, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > When using the PC classes modelling structure we end up with a class
> > node for a property which we can then modify with things like 'kinds'
> > and 'modes' etc.
> >
> > Since such a statement has meaning and comes from somewhere [e.g.:
> > that someone did something in some capacity (PC14 carried out by ...
> > P02 has range E39 + P14.1 in the role of E55)] one sometimes needs to
> > provenance this statement with an E13 attribute assignment. Ie we want
> > to ground who made this claim.
> >
> > In theory this would be done with E13 pointing to the node in the
> > typical fashion (p141, P140). However, the class
> > PC0_Typed_CRM_Property is not declared as a subtype of E1 CRM Entity
> > in the PC extension file. As a result we cannot do this.
> >
> > https://cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/7.1.1/CIDOC_CRM_v7.1.1_PC.rdfs
> >
> > I would argue PC0_Typed_CRM_Property should be declared a subclass of
> > E1_CRM_Entity. Then it would be consistent with the rest of the
> > modelling.
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > George
> > _______________________________________________
> > Crm-sig mailing list
> > 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
