Dear Martin, I have read this issue a little late. I have no problem with your argumentation. There may be a side effect.
P35: Quantification: many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n) For all x,y we have P37(x,y) ⇒ P141(x,y) Since the quantification of P35 is (1,n:0,n), then it may exist P37(a,b) and P37(a,c) and b is not c. (if not the quantification should be (1,1:0,n). From the subproperty definition P37(a,b) ⇒ P141(a,b) and P37(a,c) ⇒ P141(a,c) so we can conclude that P141(a,b) and P141(a,c) which contradicts the proposed quantification (1,1:0,n) of P141. In general a subproperty cannot have a less restrictive quantification than its superproperty. If I am correct we have check the scopenotes of P34, P35, P37, P38, P40, P42 P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by) Domain: E13<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7577> <file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7561> Attribute Assignment Range:E1<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7281> CRM Entity Superproperty of: E14<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7586> Condition Assessment. P34<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc9440> concerned (was assessed by): E18<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7650> Physical Thing [ (1,n:0,n), not OK] E16<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7618> Measurement. P39<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc9518> measured (was measured by): E18<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7650> Physical Thing [OK] E17<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7636> Type Assignment. P41<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc9555> classified (was classified by): E1<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7281> CRM Entity [OK] P141 assigned (was assigned by) Domain: E13<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7577> <file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7561> Attribute Assignment Range:E1<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7281> CRM Entity Superproperty of: E14<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7586> Condition Assessment. P35<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc9461> has identified (identified by): Ε3<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7335> Condition State [ (1,n:0,n), not OK] E15<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7601> Identifier Assignment. P37<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc9480> assigned (was assigned by): E42<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc8076> Identifier [ (0,n:0,n), not OK] E15<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7601> Identifier Assignment. P38<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc9499> deassigned (was deassigned by): E42<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc8076> Identifier [ (0,n:0,n), not OK] E16<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7618> Measurement. P40<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc9535> observed dimension (was observed in): E54<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc8128> Dimension [ (1,n:0,n), not OK] E17<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc7636> Type Assignment. P42<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc9573> assigned (was assigned by): E55<file:///C:/data/cidoc-crm%20org/2024/March_meeting/cidoc_crm_version_7.2.4.2024.02.05docx.docx#_toc8153> Type [ (1,n:0,n), not OK] In all the scopepnotes (P34, P35, P37, P38, P40, P42 ) the instance of the range is in singular number. So the quantifications can be adjusted without problem. Best, Christian-Emil ________________________________ From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> Sent: 24 January 2024 19:09 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Quantifiers of P140,P141,P177 Dear All, I remember a discussion about the quantifiers of P140, P141, assigns attribute... As it stands now, they are both "many to many (0,n:0,n)". P177 assigned property of type, has "many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n)" Firstly, all must be necessary. you cannot assign a property type without a domain and range. Secondly, the scope notes of all these properties do use singular, "the": "This property associates an instance of E13 Attribute Assignment with the type of property or relation that this assignment maintains to hold between the item to which it assigns an attribute and the attribute itself" Thirdly, multiple values confuse which is which. I remember a discussion that, theoretically, if you have: a) one domain, one type, many ranges b) many domains, one type, one range c) one domain, many types, one range, The propositions are well defined. I assume that this discussion was never ended, nor such constraints be formulated in Logic. I doubt it can be in FOL, and is, for any user, utterly confusing. The quantifiers must be: "many to one, necessary (1,1:0,n)" Generalizing single property assigments for ISSUE 602, this must be resolved. best, Martin -- ------------------------------------ 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 Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto: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
