Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping

2016-09-22 Thread martin 

On 22/9/2016 8:48 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:


If the CRM is  interpreted as an OWL ontology, then the most general 
relationship between  two objects is *owl:topObjectProperty. *


This property has very weak semantics (e.g. that there is some known 
relationship between a and b).


One benefit / problem with using this property is that it is a super 
property of all object properties, so you may need to be careful to 
turn inference on / off.


You can also define your own equivalent placeholder, which will make 
it easier to use inference when you can start upgrading to more 
specific relationships.


Simon

Sounds like a good solution! It is standard, and obviously less 
committed than anything in the CRM...


Martin


--

--
 Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
 Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
   |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
 |
   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   |
 |
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl   |
--

Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping

2016-09-22 Thread Simon Spero 
If the CRM is  interpreted as an OWL ontology, then the most general
relationship between  two objects is *owl:topObjectProperty. *

This property has very weak semantics (e.g. that there is some known
relationship between a and b).

One benefit / problem with using this property is that it is a super
property of all object properties, so you may need to be careful to turn
inference on / off.

You can also define your own equivalent placeholder, which will make it
easier to use inference when you can start upgrading to more specific
relationships.

Simon

Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping

2016-09-22 Thread martin 

Dear Philip,

I share the opinion of Steve. A general association of historical nature 
is utterly incompatible with the whole philosophy of the CRM. If a 
source refers some things as related in an unspecified way, we can only 
blame the source as information object for it. This could cover the "if 
you are interested...then...". We need some least semantics, otherwise 
any reasoning breaks down. This can be done by interpreting the 
respective vocabulary, if a relation type is provided. Minimal semantics 
are for instance parthood, presence, influence, similarity (parallels or 
causal), common type, etc.


Users should be forced to be more specific. It is hard to imagine, that 
a user knows a relationship but nothing about it.
I'd argue that such links are a result of underspecified documentation 
practice, and not of indeterminacy of scientific knowledge.


Of course, you can add a non-CRM compatible extension ;-), if you have 
no better knowledge of the documented fact.


Other opinions?

Best,

Martin

On 15/9/2016 1:54 μμ, Stephen Stead wrote:


I would probably model these in one of two ways depending on the 
nature of the general association.


A] As parts of a larger physical man made thing; so in your example 
the telephone box and the exchange a part of a regional 
telecommunications system which in turn is part of a national 
telecommunications system.


B] As both being present/participating in a period, event or activity; 
so this Napoleonic sea fort and this Napoleonic military canal are 
constructed as events that form part of the Napoleonic British Defence 
Period.


I suppose as a last resort you could create an Information Object 
which refers to them all and name the Information Object as “A list of 
things which I am interested in for X reason”; your essay of why could 
then be attached via P3 has note. In this case what you are modelling 
is not the relationship between the things but your/your 
organisation’s believe that there is a relationship (however tenuous!) 
between them.


HTH

SdS

Stephen Stead

Tel +44 20 8668 3075

Mob +44 7802 755 013

E-mail ste...@paveprime.com 

LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads

*From:*Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] *On Behalf Of 
*Carlisle, Philip

*Sent:* 15 September 2016 11:16
*To:* crm-sig (Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr) 
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping

Hi all,

The Arches project moves on a pace and is in the process of modifying 
the graphs for version 4.


In the original graphs we used a British Museum extension property 
(PXX_is_related_to) as a work around to allow us to represent the 
general association relationship we had in legacy datasets. eg. this 
telephone kiosk has a general association with this telephone exchange.


We now want to continue to be able to model a general association but 
the only property available P69 has association with (is associated 
with) is restricted in its domain and range to E29 Design or Procedure.


How do we model the ‘If you’re interested in that you might be 
interested in this’ nature of the general association between two 
physical man made things?


All thoughts appreciated.

Phil

*Phil Carlisle*

Knowledge Organization Specialist

Listing Group, Historic England

Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824

http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/

http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/

Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues 
are valued for their skillsand knowledge, and where communication, 
customer focus and working in partnership are at the heart of 
everything we do.




___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



--

--
 Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
 Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
   |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
 |
   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   |
 |
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl   |
--