Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

[Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig]

Dear Pavlos, all

reconsidering this question of the properties of properties and the 
proposed solution of the properties-classes remain some doubts and 
interrogations to me, in particular in relation with the best practices 
in the field of serialization of conceptual models in RDF.


Metadata about properties as instances, i.e. statement, can be expressed 
with the standard RDF reification or the new RDF* standard.


What is the best practice in the RDF community to express this kind of 
properties of properties (and also dates, etc. added to properties in 
conceptual models) ?



And furthermore: are the CRM properties of properties just 'metadata' or 
do they carry some additional ontological substance ?


The technical solution of 'PC' does not remove all ambiguity: are they 
in the end properties or classes? and when we talk about adding, as now, 
labels and scope notes to the PCs they do becomes classes, don't they? 
what is then their substance? just to be reified properties?


One could come to think that in fact there is more substance but not 
totally and adequately expressed, and that should be more carefully 
analyzed like in the case of P14.1 in the role of: E55 Type or P107.1 
kind of member: E55 Type.


Take the example of  P3.1 has type: E55 Type — "This property allows 
differentiation of specific notes, e.g., “construction”, “decoration” 
etc." (thank you Pavlos for the work you've done).


If P3 is not just taken as a CRM replacement of /rdfs:comment/, 
shouldn't the so called associated 'note' be modelled as an information 
object of type 'damage description' (chipped at edge of handle) related 
to the corresponding human-made object by P129 is about. Or 'chipped at 
edge of handle' would be a E3 Condition or State and the 'note' its 
description?


But because P3 has E62 String as a range, which "is not further 
elaborated upon within the model", it becomes —P3 I mean— quite relevant 
as it captures the characterization of the item itself, its internal 
structures, appearance etc.


So, again, are there any best practices in other communities of RDF 
experts that apply to these types of situations that should be analyzed 
before further specifying a notion of PC that doesn't seem totally 
justified, or raising ontological analisis issues, instead of using 
simple RDF reification?


Best

Francesco

Le 01.12.22 à 17:35, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig a écrit :

Dear all,

Please find my revised homework for issue 588 
 
below:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1b0wW70xo2wjxNlWHYDRl7nr-fzYXTchN?usp=share_link

Feel free to add your comments or send your feedback!

Best regards,
Pavlos

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:23 AM Pavlos Fafalios 
 wrote:


Dear Mark, all,

I agree, we need to make clear which constructs of the RDF are not
part of CIDOC-CRM (especially since they make use of the same
namespace).
One way is to add a note in the beginning of the file. Another way
would be to provide them through a different namespace (not sure
if this is a good solution--needs some thinking).

This is also a good reason for having them in a different RDF
file:  all classes and properties in this file, except the .1
properties, are not part of CIDOC-CRM, while the .1 properties
have a 'domain' class that is also not part of CIDOC-CRM.

Best,
Pavlos

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 5:53 PM Mark Fichtner
 wrote:

Dear all,

nice work, thanks! I think for RDF this is a valid
representation, although I am not very happy to add properties
that are not in the cidoc crm directly and that are not part
of the language itself (like in this case crm:P03_reifies). As
a user/reader of the rdf it is simply hard to understand what
is part of the cidoc crm itself and what comes due to
"workarounds". Even in as a new ontology/file/addon it mixes
cidoc crm and non-cidoc crm things.

Also we have a reification concept (E13 Attribute Assignment),
I am not sure if we need even more of these.

I'm looking forward to the discussion!

Best,

Mark Fichtner

Germanisches Nationalmuseum

Am Mo., 12. Sept. 2022 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Pavlos Fafalios
via Crm-sig :

Dear all,

Please find my homework for issue 588


in the below link (as well as in the issues' folder):


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oQRkmMUgyOeDsn3ZbPuQ__VtbigS9DVsHjmOtvx16uo/edit?usp=sharing

Apologies for the delay! Feel free to add your comments or
send your feedback!

Best regards,
Pavlos


-- 

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework for Issue 624

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear All,

I think this is  a good proposal what concerns the Appellation itself. 
If solves the names of universals and the personal name provenance.
It does however not reflect the appellations for specific instances in a 
given language, such as the ten thousands in the TGN.


The subtle point is that rdf label is private to the domain instance, as 
is LRM Nomen. Therefore the RDF language tags on labels are not on the 
Appellation, but on the link instance, and hence cannot be transferred 
to such a model.


Using a range property instead of a link property is a logical error, 
because it creates non-sensical associations.


Which of all these do we want, and how to model the latter?

Best,

Martin

On 12/6/2022 2:11 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

Reconsidering the whole exchanges in this issue, and the examples, 
notably those by Martin on November 9th, it appears that the 
information we want to model is:


this instance of E41 Appellation (i.e. a name as identifier of an 
entity) is *used* in this language (E56) — formerly or now, this is 
another topic.


So, the simplest solution (as a shortcut of longer ones but making 
sense in the context of the examples brought by George) is to add a 
property:


E41 Appellation --> is (was ?) used in --> E56 Language.

This solution avoids adding persistent item classes, which is somehow 
cumbersome, it copes with the problem and brings the information to 
the conceptual model in a concise and stringent way, without engaging 
in the ontological discussion about the language in which an 
appellation *is* (was created in this language, is used as such, etc. 
etc.).


The substance of the property, given all the examples you brought, 
seems to be quite clear: we can observe (through text and speach acts) 
that an appellation is used in a language as a valid identifier of an 
entity.


Best

Francesco




Le 05.12.22 à 08:51, George Bruseker via Crm-sig a écrit :

Dear all,

Issue 624 can be found here: 
https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-624-add-e33e41linguisticappellation-to-the-official-specification


The discussion revolves around adding a class to the specification 
and not just the rdfs which represents the phenomenon of names being 
in languages.


The homework for the issue can be found in this google doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-l6OrEy8I3doP5cCm5dTzLav6SwE2prxBtpPxpqBhaA/edit?usp=sharing

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



--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework for Issue 624

[Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Reconsidering the whole exchanges in this issue, and the examples, 
notably those by Martin on November 9th, it appears that the information 
we want to model is:


this instance of E41 Appellation (i.e. a name as identifier of an 
entity) is *used* in this language (E56) — formerly or now, this is 
another topic.


So, the simplest solution (as a shortcut of longer ones but making sense 
in the context of the examples brought by George) is to add a property:


E41 Appellation --> is (was ?) used in --> E56 Language.

This solution avoids adding persistent item classes, which is somehow 
cumbersome, it copes with the problem and brings the information to the 
conceptual model in a concise and stringent way, without engaging in the 
ontological discussion about the language in which an appellation *is* 
(was created in this language, is used as such, etc. etc.).


The substance of the property, given all the examples you brought, seems 
to be quite clear: we can observe (through text and speach acts) that an 
appellation is used in a language as a valid identifier of an entity.


Best

Francesco




Le 05.12.22 à 08:51, George Bruseker via Crm-sig a écrit :

Dear all,

Issue 624 can be found here: 
https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-624-add-e33e41linguisticappellation-to-the-official-specification


The discussion revolves around adding a class to the specification and 
not just the rdfs which represents the phenomenon of names being in 
languages.


The homework for the issue can be found in this google doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-l6OrEy8I3doP5cCm5dTzLav6SwE2prxBtpPxpqBhaA/edit?usp=sharing

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