Dear All,
I suggest to resolve the issue of referring to the provenance of .1
properties more specifically:
Solution a: Add properties to E13 to specify a .1 property. This may be
more effective than the double indirection via PC class instance and 4
links of the E13 construct.
Solution b: Use RDF reification for this specific problem via the PC class.
We need to examine in both cases the inferences we want to maintain
about the base property and its domain and range, and what the relevant
query construct is.
Personally, I prefer solution c: Use the annotation model of CRM Dig,
which goes via Named Graphs. This is much more performant and logically
clearer, because Named Graphs are implemented as direct references to
property identifier, and maintain a reference count for each one. This
is an important logic in its own right. Inferences about the .properties
would work in out ouf of a Named Graph, whereas the reification may need
additional rules.
The query languages of Quad stores support them explicitly.
The latest version of 3M supports Named Graph definitions. This feature
should be tested.
I would rather discourage E13 in the long term as a means to denote
provenance generally and recommend a uniform use of Named Graphs. I am
aware that not all RDF encodings support the feature. I that case we
could resort to reification.
Opinions?
Best,
Martin
On 5/9/2023 10:37 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear Christian-Emil, All,
For the reasons I detailed in my other email, I totally agree with
your point of view and would like to raise all possible caveats to
this kind of mixing up quick and dirty implementation solutions and
consistent conceptual modelling.
If we need more classes, even on a provisional and experimental
perspective, I would strongly suggest to produce them and document
them as such, with stable URIs, and then refine progressively the
ontology and integrate it into the CRM family. Of course, a nice place
to do this is ontome.net đ
Best
Francesco
Le 08.05.23 à 17:36, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig a écrit :
Also: RDF(S) is an implementation technology. We can assume that
there exists a implmentation function from the CRM-FOL to RDF(S), but
this may not be a 1-1 function. Strange constructs like the PC0(?)
may not have counterparts in CRM-FOL. Changing the ontology on the
bases of special tricks used in the implementation may not always be
a good idea, but may inspire us to make well thought out and
consistent changes in the ontology.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
