Dear All,
I made a mistake with the Issue number: The below message is actually a
proposal for issue 614! So far, it has been formulated as:
"Some ideas:
* An Attribute Assignment essentially talks about a single property
instance, which forms a parallel to pointing to a named graph that
contains one property instance.
* I1 Argumentation which results in an instance of I2 Belief cannot be
a subclass of E13.
* There is also a problem with S4 Observation if the reification
construct deals with more than one property simultaneously (what is
now referred to as Situation).
* The CRM set of properties that are equivalent to a named graph can
be represented as a set of propositions and the connection between
them in FOL. One can always name that and say that the predicate “X”
stands for a proposition, in CRM an instance of E89. On the other
hand, the scope note of I4 Proposition Set explicitly refers to
binary propositions and formal ontology concepts, which seems too
restrictive. Logical constructs do not specify the order or mode of
the logical system the statements are expressed in. This could yield
propositions that are incompatible with the CRM. The scope note
needs redrafting.
* The idea is that CRMinf can be connected to a CRM compatible
knowledge base through such statements. As CRMinf stands now, it
seems that many things that we regard as premises and conclusions
won’t be formulated in properties that have been defined in a formal
ontology. In general, the scope of CRMinf should be broader than
what can now be expressed. The reference to name graphs should
explicitly only leave room for named graphs that contain 1+ property
instances only (rather than instances of properties and classes or
just the one property instance permitted by E13).
* If there is any formalization in FOL that can be used to declare the
E13 reification of a single property as a specific case of a named
graph, it would be interesting to look at it. "
I hence reformulate:
We need a connection of an I4 Proposition Set (represented in a KB via a
URI) to a content model.
If we follow the *logic of P190*, we can connect the proposition set to
a materialized copy of an information object. The latter, in contrast to
P190, will not be interpreted as representing an immaterial symbolic
form of a certain symbolic level, *but* as representing an *immaterial
propositional form (*see examples for E89 Propositional Object). This
requires the latter to be either a set of statements in a KR language,
*OR *in sufficiently unambiguous textual form (in the context and for
the purpose of reference).
We need 3 kinds of links: To E52 String, to a symbolic object, and to an
external file, be it in RDF or clear text.
I propose "Jxx1,2,3 has model representation (represents model of): E52
String / E73 Information Object / E24 Human-Made Feature
Jxx2 would be used for KR file contents, but also unambiguous texts, (P2
has type, such as “the Nebra Sky Disc dates to the Early Bronze Age”
(Pernicka et al. 2020)"). Ontologically, *the "{}"* connecting a URI in
TRIG with a Named Graph corresponds to the Jxx2 link.
Jxx3 may point to a URL or archival identifier. *Jxx3 is a **shortcut*
of Jxx2 - Pxxx has representative copy.
An instance of I4 Proposition Set should be regarded to be *neutral to
*the relationship to reality, as any Information Object.
The *relationship to reality* is determined *by the link* using the
proposition set:
a) In the context of I2 Belief, the belief value of "TRUE" means "real",
*if* the propositions can be related to reality (i.e., are about real
world items). "FALSE" means at least one of the propositions in the set
are regarded to be not real. *NOTE *that in a set of inconsistent
propositions, the /false one may not be known/!
Belief values expressing *possibility or probability* mean "possibly
real" *if* the propositions can be related to reality.
b) In the context of observable situations, the link between the
observation activity and the situation implies the degree of reality
assumed. It makes sense to observe that a situation did not hold (in its
specified area and time).
c) Only proposition set held to be true by the maintainers of a KB can
be introduced as Named Graphs, because they become part of the stated
knowledge.
d) Proposition Sets held to be possibly true by the maintainers of a KB
can be introduced as Named Graphs, if the operation of the KB foresees
filtering by provenance and likelihood. In this case, Named Graphs are
particularly*effective*.
e) implementation rule/ constraints for typing Named Graph URIs are
required.
e) Finally, observing or assigning a single property (E13) can be
described as a shortcut to a content model held to be true....
*I propose to decide*, if this is the way to go forward, and then
A) Spell out the properties
B) Adjust scope notes of I4, Observation etc.
c) write the FOL connection between single property assignment and I4.
Best,
Martin
On 9/10/2023 9:52 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear All,
I suggest to discuss the meaning of I4 Proposition Set, also related
to issue 550, 510, 610
Two problems:
A) the content model. If we follow the *logic of P190*, an I4
Proposition Set should be represented by a URI and a content model,
which could be implemented as Named Graph in a KB.
If we take an I4 as a Propositional Object, we would still need a
symbolic form, which would need a representative copy (or P190).
B) If we take an I4 as *fitting potentially the reality* under
discourse, or only as a "possible world" being discussed, we need to
clarify this role. Using I2 Belief, we relate the Proposition Set to
be "true" or "false". We need to clarify, if "true" means "real", if
the propositions can be related to reality. Similarly, we need to
clarify, if an I11 Situation, as a special case, is meant to be
discussed as statements only, or, if "observed", to *exist *in
reality. We need to interpret the link to an observation is implying
its reality or not.
This is particularly interesting if we observe an area and state it
does NOT contain X.
C) We should clarify how we may refer to Proposition Sets with a human
readable text, rather than a CRM compatible RDF model.
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
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
--
------------------------------------
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
