Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 407: Ordinal Property for E55 Type

[Simon Spero]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 11:21 AM Martin Doerr  wrote:

Detail: from a maths point of view, partial ordering may be allowed for:
> I.e.: not all value pairs can  be compared with respect to the order
> relation. This happens in spaces with more than one dimension, but does not
> affect transitivity. Any math freak here to confirm?;-)
>

A partial order defined by < is transitive, irreflexive, and asymmetric (≤
is transitive, reflexive, and antisymmetric).

Also, there can be total orders on  multi-dimensional spaces - e.g. museums
ordered by distance from Bloomsbury, and partial orders on a single
dimension - e.g. (proper) part-of on physical objects.

Simon

>

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Recording an E41 in RDF

[Simon Spero]

On Jan 16, 2018 10:07 AM, "Richard Light"  wrote:


I think the principle is valid, but rdfs:label is a property, not a class,
so I think that "rdfs:label" should be replaced by "rdf:literal" (or
possibly "rdf:plainLiteral"[1]) in the above text.  The point I assume that
Martin is making is that the value of a *P1_is_identified_by *property can
be finessed into a string if you have nothing more interesting to say about
that value.


Some brief  RDF / RDFS / OWL notes:

1:  The IRI rdf:Literal refers to the set of all possible concrete data
values (e.g.


   -

   the real number [1]
   -

   the floating point value [1]
   -

   the temperature [1°C]
   -

   the string (sequence of characters)   ['o','n','e'], or ['1']
   -

   a string with an associated natural language tag [<["one"] , ["en"]>] or
   [<["one"], ["de"]>]
   -

   the English word [*one*]


It is the top datatype in OWL, and can be used to restrict a property's
range in rdfs; however it is usually possible to specify a more precise
type.

2: RDF 1.1 removed the concept of Plain Literals (which were literals in an
RDF document that had no specified  datatype, and which may or may not have
a language tag).  The type rdf:PlainLiteral was introduced by the OWL
working group (at a time when there was no RDF working group), which was
mostly ignored when the RDF 1.1 working group was formed.

RDF 1.1 added a new datatype, rdf:langString, which (sort of) denotes the
set of all strings with an associated  language tag. A langString MUST have
a non-empty language tag. PlainLiteral can be approximated as the union of
xsd:string and rdf:langString.

The values of langString (and appropriate subset of PlainLiteral) are pairs
of strings; there is an extra level of interpretation required to turn them
into natural language utterances, but this can be as simple as displaying
the string to a user.  There need not be a valid interpretation (e.g. the
string may not correspond to an utterance in the indicated language).

If the range of a property is intended to be interpretable as natural
language utterances then langString (or a defined  OWL datatype restricting
PlainLiteral to have a non-empty language tag) is usually a good choice.

If a property has  string  values that do not correspond to a natural
language utterance, then using a range of xsd:string is appropriate.

If a property can have values which are strings that  may or may not have
language tags, then PlainLiteral may be appropriate; however this does not
distinguish between strings in an unknown or unspecified natural language,
and strings which are Just Strings.
In situations like this it may be useful to define objects to serve as
value holders. Doing so can also allow for more detailed restrictions in
OWL (e.g. requiring the preferred label for a Concept in a given KOS to be
unique for a given language).

3: rdfs:label is an annotation property, which means that it should be used
to add metadata describing things in an ontology document, rather than the
things the ontology is about. As a consequence of this, any rdfs:label
assertions are completely ignored by OWL direct semantics ; there are only
three axioms that can be used when defining annotation properties
(subproperty, domain, and range). Even these are invisible to a direct
semantics reasoner (though they can be used by editors and other tools).

4: Simple Literals...  orz

Re: [Crm-sig] End of Existence for Rights? ISSUE

[Simon Spero]

Parts I and II of Hohfeld's articles are collected below (the 2nd (1920)
edition is digitized). Since he continued to be dead for all editions, this
is not a major issue.

Hohfeld, W. N. (1920). *Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in
judicial reasoning: and other legal essays*. Yale University Press.
Available at https://books.google.com/books?id=GK0zAQAAMAAJ

This field is, to quote Brown, "esoteric literature", but Hohfeld is
usually a recommended entry point.

There are  some owlifications, but they haven't seen much application.

There are arguments  against Legal Positivism in the broad sense, but those
seem like they can be avoided  in the CRM context.

The primary concepts needed for CRM would seem to be those from the areas
of Personal Property, together with a small subset of those involved in
contracts, that correspond to the "Facts" that would be input to a
Positivist's "Law".

It is important to be able distinguish between e.g. the loan of a painting
for a definite or indefinite period; the gift of a painting; the transfer
of a painting for restoration; or the purchase of a painting for value.
It may or may not be important to know when a painting has been on exhibit,
and how that exhibit was publicized.

Provenance is important, but that kind of applies to other parts of the CRM
:)

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scholarly Reading.

[Simon Spero]

A quick meta-point on the issue, and the term *factoid. *

1. The issue as a whole involves so many different complicated questions
that any attempt to simplify inference without explicating them separately
is likely to have problems.  The issue might involve epistemic modal
logics; doxastic logics (which usually are paraconsistent); justification
logics; context logics; speech acts; quotation; DRT; and all sorts of other
fun stuff.

It might be possible to provide for the desired inferences using something
like IKL (~ ISO Common Logic plus a proposition forming operator (that)).
Like CL, it's first order with quantification over predicates.

2. The term *factoid* has a second sense in US English, referring to a
something that is true, but trivial. This sense is almost completely
dominant; a factoid in this sense is JTB.

The earlier sense has been more or less obliterated in common usage. I
translate the first sense to be "a belief  justified solely by a single
writing" , possibly with a connotation the creator of the writing either
 believed the factoid to be false, or believed that they did not know the
factoid, though that could be definitional. This sense of factoid seems to
be not JTB,  even if it is accidentally true, and the form of the
publication would normally be justification.  [NB: not equating JTB and
*knowledge] *

Simon

On Apr 4, 2017 9:19 AM, "Francesco Beretta" <
francesco.bere...@ish-lyon.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Here some interesting documentation about the Factoid model:
>
> http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/#
>
> Best
>
> Francesco
>
> Le 30.03.17 à 17:10, martin a écrit :
>
> Dear All,
>
> My colleague Athina found the following paper:
> Michele Pasin, John Bradley; Factoid-based prosopography and computer
> ontologies: towards an integrated approach. Lit Linguist Computing 2015; 30
> (1): 86-97.
>
> It seems that "factoid" describes the attitude towards a text I tried to
> formulate as "Reading" ?
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 23/3/2017 8:10 μμ, martin wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I propose to start the discussion about a simplified Inference model for
> the case in which the interpretation of a text as a proposition is not
> questioned, but other things are questioned:
>
> A) assertions of historical truth: We need a text with a questioned fact,
> such as Nero singing in Rome when it was burning. I think Tacitus states he
> was singing in Rome, and another source says he was on the countryside.
>
> B) Shakespeare's "love is not love" : scholarly interpretation =
> translation of sense
>
> C) Questioning provenance or authenticity of texts: In the Merchant of
> Venice, place details are mentioned that only a person who was there could
> have written that. Shakespeare was not allowed to travel abroad.
> C1) Or, critical editions: In the first written version of Buddha's
> speaches (Pali Canon), there are identifiable passages that present
> past-Buddha dogmata.
>
> I would start with A), then B), then C)
>
> So, we first want to solve the case that the premise is a proposition,
> which is not believed as such.
> Rather, it is believed that the author of the text meant to express this
> proposition. This implies that the premise does not make any sense without
> a provenance assumption, which must be believed.
>
> In A), the provenance of the text from Tacitus is believed. His good will
> to say the truth about Nero not.
> In B) The provenance "Shakespeare" back to the respective edition/name or
> pseudonym/place of creation is not questioned.
> In C1) The text as being that compiled following the first performance is
> not questioned, but who wrote the text under the name of Shakespeare is
> questioned.
> In C2) The provenance of the Pali Canon edition is not questioned, neither
> that its content mainly goes historically back to Buddha, but the
> provenance of a paragraph is questioned.
>
> Therefore, we could Introduce a subclass of I2 Belief i'd call "reading",
> which puts the focus on believing authenticity of a comprehensible natural
> language proposition relative to an explicitly stated provenance, but does
> not mean believing the proposition, nor questioning the intended meaning of
> the text:
>
> J1 used as premise (was premise for) : IXX Reading
>
> IXX Reading  subclass of I2 Belief (or a generalized Belief)
>
> properties of IXX Reading:
>JX1 understanding : Information Object (the cited phrase, understanding
> the words)
>JX2 believing provenance : I4 Proposition Set (This contains the link
> from the cited phrase to the text the phrase is taken from, and all
> provenance data believed. E.g. Shakespeare edition 1648(??) believed,
> authorship by Shakespeare questioned, etc.)
>  *optional:*
>JX3 reading as : I4 Proposition Set (the translation of the cited into
> triples. If absent, the interpretation of the cited phrase is regarded to
> be obvious)
>
> and J5 defaults to "true" (I believe all "J5
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] Rights model

[Simon Spero]

I was about to write that "It's more complicated than that", but you got
there first.
Also your comments over-simplify :-)

The good thing about personal property and intellectual property is that at
least they're not real property. That's where things really get confused.

BTW, it is not always possible to treat ownership by more than one legal
persons as if they were a single entity. The rights of the parties may
differ in different situations.

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 6:32 AM martin  wrote:

> Dear Robert, Stephen,
>
> I think these questions are too complex for an e-mail discussion. It is
> absolutely non-trivial to talk about
> 50% ownership. The CRM was clearly not made to describe business
> transaction in the way you mention below. That needs a careful extension
> and systematic description of the questions. We had formed a team to
> investigate business models analyzing spectrum, but the partners from
> Collection Trust dropped out later.
>
> The first action would be to restart that work, form a team, and recover
> all arguments in the minutes.
>
> As CRM-SIG, we are interested in robust models that we can recommend as
> standards. That requires a complete understanding of the issues.
>
> The reasoning about owning a physical thing is very different from
> owning an Information Object. Metaphoric analogies natural language is
> built on can be very deceiving.
>
> Any user of the CRM can make his own extensions any time. It is not a
> virtue to reuse CRM constructs for areas not intended to. That causes
> the typical mess of pseudo-compatiblity.
>
> If we describe physical ownership as a E30 Right, we come in conflict
> with the property.
>
> I propose to split the questions.
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 21/3/2017 8:25 πμ, Stephen Stead wrote:
> > Robert
> > The question of a Right held by multiple people is indeed interesting.
> > Might it be modelled as all parties forming a Group that then holds the
> Right?
> > If the proportions of the Right held by individuals was important then I
> think your suggestion of component Rights that form part of the overall
> Right and each having a dimension would do very well.
> > Rgds
> > 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
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Robert
> Sanderson
> > Sent: 20 March 2017 21:42
> > To: martin ; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Rights model
> >
> >
> > Apologies for the delay in responding, we’ve been trying to map out the
> extent of the information we need to track to enable research on historical
> art markets and ownership.
> >
> > One of the most interesting and challenging questions that has come up
> is around joint ownership of a piece of art.  Ownership of an object is
> clearly a Right, but is it divisible with P148_has_component (via
> inheritance from E89)?  For example, if two Persons each own 50% of the
> value of an object, is there an Ownership Right, which has two component
> Rights, each of which have a dimension of 50% ?
> >
> > Or would that mean that there are two halves of the expression of the
> Right, perhaps the main clause and an equally long rider?
> >
> > I think that answering this question will help with the broader question
> of the meaning of E30.
> >
> > Some use cases:
> >   * Two dealers (Knoedler and Goupil) jointly pay for a painting, and
> later jointly share the profits (or loss!) when it’s sold
> >   * A donor donates 10% of the value of an object each year for 10 years
> (to spread out the tax write off)
> >   * A married couple divorce and agree to have half share in the value
> of their statue
> >   * The children of the owner inherit an equal share of the valuable
> manuscript on the owner’s death
> >   * The object is jointly owned by the city and the museum from when the
> city and museum were indistinguishable as organizations
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > On 3/10/17, 9:53 AM, "Crm-sig on behalf of martin" <
> crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr on behalf of mar...@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> >
> >  On 28/2/2017 9:50 μμ, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> >  > Dear all,
> >  >
> >  > Given the current model, I believe that E30 Right is an instance
> of the holding of a Right, rather than the concept of the Right itself?
> For example, E30 is not “Copyright” or “Apache 2.0” or “Ownership” … it is
> “The holding of copyright of an object by Martin”, “the use of Apache 2.0
> for some code by Rob”, or “Ownership of a house by Emma”.
> >  Dear Robert,
> >
> >  Yes, here we should actually talk about three things: The holding
> of the
> >  right, the content of the right, and the concept of the right. E30
> is
> >  intended to be the content of the right, which is relatively
> trivial if
> >  it is just an instance of unspecified copyright, but not if it is an
> >  

Re: [Crm-sig] Rights model

[Simon Spero]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Robert Sanderson 
wrote:

>
> Can I then transfer ownership of an E30 Right? No, as you transfer
> ownership of Physical Things (E18), not of Propositional (E89), Conceptual
> (E28), Man-Made (E71), Things (E70).
>

Such a limitation would not really match the way the law thinks of
"Rights". "Rights" can be transferred separately from ownership of a
physical thing.
For example, if you rent an apartment, the lease is a transfer of the
"right" to occupy the premises from the landlord to you, without giving you
ownership of the property.

I do agree that treating rights as propositions is somewhat problematic, as
in order to be transferable, they would have in some sense to be
self-referential, which can be the first step on the road to paradox (No
offense intended to the Cretans on the list).

If we treat 'that' as a proposition forming operator, an alienable right r
to reproduce a work w might be expressed as:

r = that[∀x.possess(x,r) → ◇reproduce(x,w)]

[where ◇ is the deontic handwaving operator]. This formulation does not
express the ability to further transfer the right;  contexts can make
things easier to express.


Simon

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE MonetaryAmount Identity

[Simon Spero]

It makes a difference *to the model* for the relationship between
Linguistic Objects and Monetary Amounts.  For example, if the researchers
for a particular sale conclude from a newspaper article that the final
auction hammer price was $1M for the painting, is it that the Linguistic
Object refers to the Monetary Amount as the generic face value of any old
million dollars, or is it explicitly the million dollars that was the sale
price?


I find it difficult to interpret the use of the term 'price' as referring
to anything other than a dimensioned value, rather than a specific payment
event involving the transfer of some specific assets.

It's analogous to a report stating that Tom Brady has a 40 yard dash time
of 5.28 seconds, but Ben Roethlisberger has a 40 yard dash time of 4.75
seconds. Although, because these are the results of measurements, we can
infer the existence of two specific intervals of time, and two specific
patches of  ground, this is irrelevant to the report.

Also, suppose that instead of a hammer price of $1M, there had been a
reserve price of $2M, and the highest bid was $1M.
Then consider the counterfactual sentence "Had the reserve price not been
$2M, the hammer price would have been $1M."...

 Is it possible to compare the hypothetical hammer price to the reserve
price? Does this require an implicit conversion between two radically
different things?

In the original scenario, at the time that the hammer fell, the precise
assets to be used to make the payment are not known. Suppose the buyer
refuses to pay, and is sued for $1M plus interest  for the  breach of
contract.  What do the various tokens  of  "$1M"  that would occur in the
complaint refer to? On What is the interest calculated?

Simon

Re: [Crm-sig] 6.2.2's MonetaryAmount and Currency

[Simon Spero]

On Jan 3, 2017 6:06 PM, "Robert Sanderson"  wrote:


All currency amounts have an absolute value that changes constantly due to
inflation and markets, and there’s no way to associate a date with the
amount instance to capture this.


The value of $1 (USD) is $1 (USD).  The purchasing power may vary over
time, but nominal value remains the same.

 If you have an account holding 2000 Brazilian Reals, this may have been
worth $1000 (USD)  in 2014, but only be worth $500 (USD) in 2016; the value
in Reals is unchanged.

When redenomination of a currency occurs, a new ISO 4217 code is assigned.

 As a thought experiment, if the unit of an “inch” were to change
definition to be exactly 2.5 centimeters, then I believe from the
description of Dimension, that the lengths would remain the same in
absolute value, and we would need a new unit for “new inches”.


Strangely enough, the length of an inch has changed in the past.

"In 1959, the International yard and pound
 agreement defined the
international yard as 0.9144 metres,
<#m_-9186408886729773087_m_-239957202859173186_m_-2910843439945447373_m_-5890627998445079603_cite_note-FR59-5442-21>
and
the imperial and US yards were redefined accordingly.

This resulted in the internationally accepted length of the imperial and US
customary inch being exactly 25.4 millimetres. The international inch is
1.7 millionths of an inch longer than the old imperial inch, and 2
millionths of an inch shorter than the old US inch." (Wikipedia: Inch)

Simon

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 307

[Simon Spero]

[My in-house philosopher of science is currently zoned out under a cat]

There are a lot of theoretical issues involved in the ontological status of
observations / observation reports / observation sentences, etc. See e.g.
[1].

*Directly observable *can be a loaded term ; my cat-laden reference source
notes the term is used by different philosophers to mean the kind of
observations that their school of thought thinks is particularly good.

Immediate might also be problematic, as it may taken as meaning unaided
(e.g. no telescopes).

Simon


[1]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/#WhaDoObsRepDes

On Dec 8, 2016 3:09 PM, "Øyvind Eide"  wrote:

Dear Martin,

I understand your rationale. However, it is a tricky question as the words
are used in different ways in different disciplines.

Objectivity is used in this way in CRM before, so fine. Immediate is not.
To me the word ‘immediate’ indicates that the results are established
without human interaction — it is surely a language problem. Would ‘direct’
instead of ‘immediate’ work?

English first language’rs, any views?

Regards,

Øyvind

7. des. 2016 kl. 21:07 skrev martin :

Dear Oeyvind,

"objective" may be an overkill. I thought of using a yardstick, which
compare the Yardstick with the item by human senses. The method is
objective. Do you have examples of non-objective measurements? The term
"immediate" I would not like to drop, because I want to make clear that
evaluation of documents is not regarded as measurement. "Remote sensing"
still requires the sensors to be in place at the time. Astronomy is not a
priority domain for us, but "measuring" a Supernova at several thousand
light years distance would require measuring a Supernova signasl arriving
at us. So, for me measurement means being in immediate contact with the
measured.

Would that make sense?

Cheers,

Martin

On 7/12/2016 11:36 πμ, Øyvind Eide wrote:

Dear Martin,

I think the following claim is too strong: “a systematic, objective
procedure of immediate observation” I think both objective and immediate
have to be qualified in order to be used in this context. As the last
paragraph describes the process in some detail, the reference to
objectivity and immediateness can also just be removed.

All the best,

Øyvind

24. nov. 2016 kl. 17:04 skrev martin :

Dear All,

After consultation with Achille and Thanasi, here my proposed scope note
for E16. The idea is to introduce S4 Observation and Observable Entity into
CRM proper.

*Old Scope note:*

E16 Measurement

Subclass of:  E13 Attribute Assignment


Scope note: This class comprises actions measuring physical
properties and other values that can be determined by a systematic
procedure.


Examples include measuring the monetary value of a collection of coins or
the running time of a specific video cassette.


The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or
radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care
applied, so that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later
stage, or research continued on the associated documents. The date of the
event is important for dimensions, which may change value over time, such
as the length of an object subject to shrinkage. Details of methods and
devices are best handled as free text, whereas basic techniques such as
"carbon 14 dating" should be encoded using *P2 has type (is type of:) E55
Type*.

Examples:

§   measurement of height of silver cup 232 on the 31st  August 1997

§   the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 [an about
400.000 years old Palaeolithic complete wooden spear found in Schoeningen,
Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995]


In First Order Logic:

  E16(x) ⊃ E13(x)


Properties:

P39 measured (was measured by): E1 CRM Entity

P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension


*New Scope Note:*
E16 Measurement

Subclass of:  E13 Attribute Assignment


Scope note: This class comprises actions measuring quantitative
physical properties and other values that can be determined by a
systematic, objective procedure of immediate observation of particular
states of physical reality. Properties of instances of E90 Symbolic Object
may be measured via observing some of their representative carriers.


Examples include measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of
coins or the running time of a movie on a specific video cassette.


The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or
radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care
applied, so that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later
stage, or research continued on the associated documents. The date of the
event is important for dimensions, which may change value over time, such
as the length of an object subject to shrinkage. Methods  and devices
employed should be associated with instances of E16 Measurement by
properties 

Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping

[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] P62 Homework

[Simon Spero]

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 3:39 PM martin  wrote:

> Dear Franco, All,
>
Dear Martin, Stephen, all :-)

The property "depicts" was meant to do it via a visual process,
> in particular statues and paintings, that by their whole shape and surface
> properties represent something. This means, by
> surface properties and passive light reflection.


[all uses of "depict"  or "depicts" that follow should be understood as
referring to P62, possibly with the second argument unspecified]

This roughly matches my understanding, which makes a couple of Stephen's
answers confusing; possibly because my questions were unclear.

1)  a picture on an e-ink display does not depict.
This surprised me, as e-ink (and e-paper in general) work by passive light
reflection, and only require power to change the display.
The intended contrast was with the active OLED display, which emits light,
and requires continuous power.

2) a picture that requires a UV lamp to be seen does depict.
This question was aimed at clarifying whether the image must be produced by
(subtractive) reflection of incident light, or if fluorescence caused
absorption of that light was sufficient.

3) a ball-and-stick model of DNA is  not a depiction of DNA.

I am unsure why this is the case; it is a symbolic representation, created
by human activity, and intended to be decoded using the human visual system
without the assistance of specific equipment.
If it does not depict, then it is not clear that "Guernica" does.

I assume it is uncontroversial that  "Photograph 51"  depicts DNA?

Simon

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling .1 properties

[Simon Spero]

It is easy to specify a property value whose subject is a Property  - this
is just a simple case of OWL 2 punning.  However this is not the same as
applying a property to a triple, or to specify properties of properties.

Sometimes the problem is the inability of rdf to handle predicates with
more than two arguments. Thus a predicate that would requires three
arguments must be reified; in a different ontology language the three
argument predicate could be expressed directly.

In other cases, the predicate may not have a finite arity. This is the
problem that Davidson was addressing with reified events.

Some ontology languages allow for an entirely different kind of  properties
of properties. Languages like CycL, Common Logic, and KIF allow you to
define predicates that take other predicates as arguments. These systems
are not true 2nd order logics, as they restrict the range of predicates to
those explicitly mentioned, but they allow things like reflexivety or
transitivity of various kinds to be expressed in the language, rather than
requiring such concepts to be primitive.

This kind of expressivity can be  very useful when trying to express how
various properties of an item in a collection might be derived from
properties of the collection (or vice versa). This is especially useful
when combined with modal, probabilistic, or non-montonic reasoning (for
example, many properties of a FRBR item can be derived from its
manifestation ; however some items may differ from the prototype - pieces
may be missing, or the copy signed).

Simon

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 3:30 PM Dan Matei  wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> So, the PCxxx classes are a just a contortion of properties. I guess they
> are useful only because rdfs and owl do not accept properties as domains.
> There are other practical uses of them ?
>
> Since I do not care much about RDF, the tuples in my database are
> something like:
>
><.1 predicateQualifierId> 
> 
>
>
> If the  is a crm:E62_String, then I have also .
>
> If the  is a crm:E60_Number or a crm:E61_Time_Primitive, I also
> have  (e.g. =, <= etc. circa, ante, nonpost etc.) and
> .
>
> Thus every predicate can have at least one .1 property. But I also can say
> (simplified):
>
>
> <#1> <#EiffelTower> <#P43_has_dimension> <#height> <#circa> "300" <#m>
> <#me:2016-02-04>
>
> <#2> <#1> <#isDoubtful> "true" <#me:2016-02-04>
>
>
> When I will have to (when ?), I hope I will be able to do a decent json-ld
> serialization.
>
> It is (too) heretical ?
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On 3 February 2016 at 22:37, martin  wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> The "PCXXX" classes are exactly the suitable formalism you ask for.,
>> graph-topologically equivalent to the reification.
>> We must not confuse the syntactic pattern, which is the same for the
>> PCXXX solution, the annotation
>> and the reification, with the intended meaning ;-) .
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On 3/2/2016 8:58 μμ, Dan Matei wrote:
>>
>>> Despite the fact that I'm always told that reification is not
>>> recomanded, I decided to "piser contre le vent" :-)
>>>
>>> Functionally, the reification is just natural. Proof: the "invention" of
>>> .1 properties in CRM.
>>>
>>> Aaa, if the formalisms we have do not handle it well, please invent a
>>> suitable formalism, my dear friends.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dan Matei
>>> consultant (documentaristică, biblioteci digitale),
>>> Fundația Gellu Naum,
>>> [Institutul Național al Patrimoniului]
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: martin 
>>> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>>> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 20:09:26 +0200
>>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling .1 properties
>>>
>>> Dear Simon,
>>>>
>>>> Our messages crossed, your analysis is correct! We have discussed
>>>> however, that reification or annotation is not recommended, rather an
>>>> introduction of a node (class) representing a triary property rather
>>>> than
>>>> an individual entity. From the existence of an instance of
>>>> PC14_carried_out_by we can automatically infer
>>>> the instance of P14, as described in the formalization.
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> martin
>>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2016 7:55 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The first orde

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling .1 properties

[Simon Spero]

There is generally no problem with reification qua reification!
The CRM is committed to reification in its model of actions and events. See
Davidson's "The Logical Form of Action Sentences" [1] for the paper that
made this approach dominant. It's worth a read.

The collection "Essays on Action and Events" [2] collects other related
papers; for  commentary see [3] -  mostly for Quine's essay on identity
conditions for events to which Davidson is replying in the second edition
of [2].  Identity is one of the  things that requires consideration when
considering reification.

-

What is usually being objected to specifically is "RDF reification".
This facility consists of a class called rdf:Statement, together with the
properties - subject, predicate, and object.

The mechanism that is provided is pretty awful.

Here is a reified statement.

_:x a rdf:Statement,
 rdf:subject :foo,
 rdf:predicate :property,
 rdf:object :bar .

This does *not* entail
:foo :property :bar.



[1] http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic638346.files/Davidson1967.pdf

[2]
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199246270.001.0001/acprof-9780199246274

[3]
https://books.google.com/books/about/Actions_and_Events.html?id=Tjl6QgAACAAJ=kp_cover
On Feb 3, 2016 2:02 PM, "Dan Matei"  wrote:

> Despite the fact that I'm always told that reification is not recomanded,
> I decided to "piser contre le vent" :-)
>
> Functionally, the reification is just natural. Proof: the "invention" of
> .1 properties in CRM.
>
> Aaa, if the formalisms we have do not handle it well, please invent a
> suitable formalism, my dear friends.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Matei
> consultant (documentaristică, biblioteci digitale),
> Fundația Gellu Naum,
> [Institutul Național al Patrimoniului]
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: martin 
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 20:09:26 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling .1 properties
>
> > Dear Simon,
> >
> > Our messages crossed, your analysis is correct! We have discussed
> > however, that reification or annotation is not recommended, rather an
> > introduction of a node (class) representing a triary property rather than
> > an individual entity. From the existence of an instance of
> > PC14_carried_out_by we can automatically infer
> > the instance of P14, as described in the formalization.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > martin
> >
> > On 3/2/2016 7:55 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:
> > >
> > > The first order formalization  given in the crm document are:
> > >
> > > P14(x,y,z) ⊃ [P14(x,y) ∧ E55(z)]
> > >
> > > Note that the predicate on the left hand side has three arguments,
> > > which is more arguments than rdf is comfortable with.
> > >
> > > The "in the role of" property is modifying an instance of a "carried
> > > out by" property.
> > > An activity can be carried out by several different agents, each in a
> > > different role, so the property cannot be attached directly to the
> > > activity.
> > >
> > > There are several possible ways of representing this using semantic
> > > web tools.
> > >
> > > The first approach is to use RDF reification. I am not going to say
> > > anything more about this.
> > >
> > > If you are using OWL 2, you can add an annotation each "carried out
> > > by" property assertion.  This is not ideal, as annotations are not
> > > really supposed to be part of the data in the model, and most
> > > reasoners ignore them. They are also not easy to work with in RDF.
> > >
> > > A third approach is to define your own class for reification,
> > > representing an instance of a "carrying out" ; this class would have
> > > properties relating the activity, the agent, and the role.
> > >
> > > The best approach may be to define a sub property of P14 for each type
> > > of carrying out in a role which is relevant to your model.
> > > You can specify the role associated with all uses of this property
> > > using a property whose subject is the subproperty.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > On Feb 3, 2016 10:01 AM, "Allison Miller"
> > > mailto:allison.mil...@sysemia.co.uk>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I wish to use the CIDOC CRM but need a formal model to do so and
> > > have a question concerning .1 properties

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling .1 properties

[Simon Spero]

The first order formalization  given in the crm document are:

P14(x,y,z) ⊃ [P14(x,y) ∧ E55(z)]

Note that the predicate on the left hand side has three arguments, which is
more arguments than rdf is comfortable with.

The "in the role of" property is modifying an instance of a "carried out
by" property.
An activity can be carried out by several different agents, each in a
different role, so the property cannot be attached directly to the
activity.

There are several possible ways of representing this using semantic web
tools.

The first approach is to use RDF reification. I am not going to say
anything more about this.

If you are using OWL 2, you can add an annotation each "carried out by"
property assertion.  This is not ideal, as annotations are not really
supposed to be part of the data in the model, and most reasoners ignore
them. They are also not easy to work with in RDF.

A third approach is to define your own class for reification, representing
an instance of a "carrying out" ; this class would have properties relating
the activity, the agent, and the role.

The best approach may be to define a sub property of P14 for each type of
carrying out in a role which is relevant to your model.
You can specify the role associated with all uses of this property using a
property whose subject is the subproperty.

Simon
On Feb 3, 2016 10:01 AM, "Allison Miller" 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> I wish to use the CIDOC CRM but need a formal model to do so and have a
> question concerning .1 properties.
>
> eg. E7 Activity has: P14 carried out by (performed): E39 Actor and (P14.1
> in the role of: E55 Type)
>
>
>
> It is a property I need to use - but I can’t work out how to model it!
>
> I thought I could use the Erlangen OWL implementation, but I can’t find
> these properties in it. (That’s not to claim they aren’t there, my
> knowledge of OWL is limited.)
>
> I would welcome any guidance on P14.1, and other .1 properties, in the
> Erlangen implementation, or advice on including them in a definition
> compatible with Semantic Web technologies if anyone has done this.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alli
>
>
>
> E-mail: allison.mil...@sysemia.co.uk
>
> Web: www.sysemia.com
>
>
>
>
> Sysemia Limited
>
> The Innovation Centre, Bristol & Bath Science Park, Dirac Crescent,
> Emerson's Green, Bristol BS16 7FR
>
> Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 7555456
>
>
>
> DISCLAIMER
>
> Information contained in this e-mail is intended for the use of the
> addressee only, and is confidential and may also be privileged. If you
> receive this message in error, please advise us immediately. If you are not
> the intended recipient(s), please note that any form of distribution,
> copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. Attachments to this e-mail may contain
> software viruses which may damage your systems. Sysemia Ltd have taken
> reasonable steps to minimise this risk, but we advise that any attachments
> are virus checked before they are opened.
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>

Re: [Crm-sig] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49

[Simon Spero]

I would argue that the extreme case is not the set of cutlery, but the Ship
of Theseus- or more practically, the Car of Enzo.

For models such as the 250 GTO,  it is very much the provenance in
association with the chassis number that determine the identity over time.

If a vehicle is crashed, then restored without a transfer of custody, any
application of the new scope note may be post hoc.

Simon
On Oct 5, 2015 10:13 AM, "martin"  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Issue:
> P49:
>
> This shortcut supposes the existence of at least one representative part
> standing physically for the whole. Discuss knowledge revision process if a
> piece taken to be the representative of the whole must be regarded piece of
> another. Things kept may have parts in other hands.
>
> A comment should be stated. Steve, MD, Athinak should think together
>
>
>
> I propose the scope note addition:
>
> Scope note:  This property identifies the E39 Actor or Actors who
> have or have had custody of an instance of E18 Physical Thing at some time.
> This property leaves open the question if parts of this physical thing have
> been added or removed during the time-spans it has been under the custody
> of this actor, but it is required that at least a part which can
> unambiguously be identified as representing the whole has been under this
> custody for its whole time. For instance, in the extreme case of a set of
> cutlery we may require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of
> the actor.
>
>
> Best,
>
> 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   |
> --
>
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>

Re: [Crm-sig] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49

[Simon Spero]

I would argue that the extreme case is not the set of cutlery, but the Ship
of Theseus- or more practically, the Car of Enzo.

For models such as the 250 GTO,  it is very much the provenance in
association with the chassis number that determine the identity over time.

If a vehicle is crashed, then restored without a transfer of custody, any
application of the new scope note may be post hoc.

Simon
On Oct 5, 2015 10:13 AM, "martin"  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Issue:
> P49:
>
> This shortcut supposes the existence of at least one representative part
> standing physically for the whole. Discuss knowledge revision process if a
> piece taken to be the representative of the whole must be regarded piece of
> another. Things kept may have parts in other hands.
>
> A comment should be stated. Steve, MD, Athinak should think together
>
>
>
> I propose the scope note addition:
>
> Scope note:  This property identifies the E39 Actor or Actors who
> have or have had custody of an instance of E18 Physical Thing at some time.
> This property leaves open the question if parts of this physical thing have
> been added or removed during the time-spans it has been under the custody
> of this actor, but it is required that at least a part which can
> unambiguously be identified as representing the whole has been under this
> custody for its whole time. For instance, in the extreme case of a set of
> cutlery we may require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of
> the actor.
>
>
> Best,
>
> 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   |
> --
>
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>

Re: [Crm-sig] Fixity Hash in CRM

[Simon Spero]

Another problem with this is that a hash of a bit string does not identify
an Image (even if the hash is 1:1).

An Image is abstract and conceptual,  and has an identity is preserved
across transformations that would generate different bit strings.

Going the other way,  I believe that CIDOC does require that the same bit
string not correspond to multiple images. For example, an imaging sensor
might capture an image with the shutter closed at the start of a series of
measurements - such an image could be used for calibration.
Many such images might have identical bit strings, but would be
conceptually different works under some stances. However,  since they have
indistinguishable appearances, they are the same Image.

Fixity hashes might be better treated as properties of a FRBRoo
Manifestation; such properties are intrinsic to the Manifestation*; they
are not externally assigned in the same way that a URI, accession number,
etc are.

Simon
* or as a the value of a property that must be  the same for every item
that is an instance of that Manifestation
On Sep 9, 2015 4:15 PM, "daniel riley"  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I wanted to get confirmation on the correct application of the Cidoc-crm
> in the case of checksum hashes (i.e. fixity values).
>
> For instance if the hash of a digital image file computes to:
> 6b8dca09e851a987050463c9c60603e9ad797ba09117056fc2e0c07bcac66e43
>
> My first thought would be to use:
>
> E38_Image - P1_is_identified_by - E42_Identifier (hash value)
> E42_Identifier - P2_has_type - "SHA256 HASH"
>
> However, the scope notes for E42_Identifier explicitly states:
> The class E42 Identifier is not normally used for machine-generated
> identifiers
>
> A hash is definitely machine generated, so what are the other options
> here? Should I use a different ontology for this case?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel Riley
> Verisart
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>

Re: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints?

[Simon Spero]

To add a bit more confusion to the discussion,  one can consider Blake's
hand printed books.
Every plate was coloured individually, and differently, and are some
scholars consider each copy to be a distinct [thing more abstract than
Manifestation].

There is some justification for this,  as there is distinct intellectual
content (produced by the original author, even). This seems to fall into
the awkward place in FRBR where expression and work overlap.

This happens a lot in different places in FRBR;  it's difficult to handle
without using a second order logic,  or at least a first order logic which
allows for quantifying over known predicates.

Simon

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 5:48 AM   wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> I completely agree with Martin. There is no point in dealing with art
> prints as continuing resources. PRESSoo is inadequate in this context. I
> think there is enough stuff in a combination of FRBRoo and CIDOC CRM to
> cope with at least the main issues raised by art prints. Surely an
> extension of FRBRoo could bring more refinements in the treatment of such
> products, but FRBRoo has to remain a high-level conceptual model.
> Best wishes,
> Patrick
>
>
>
> De :martin 
> A :crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Date :09/08/2015 16:11
> Objet :Re: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints?
> Envoyé par :"Crm-sig" 
> --
>
>
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> A serialization character of prints is not so obvious to me. The reworking
> of print plates appears to me
> to be a rather peculiar process of modification of a material object, not
> so much an editorial series.
> The actual printing process is either a mechanical one, or a combination
> of manual creative work and
> mechanical work, which I'd see more similar to book printing on one side,
> and mold-based techniques,
> such as in ceramics or bronze?
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 7/8/2015 7:05 μμ, Jim Salmons wrote:
> Regine, C.E.S., and Martin,
>
> In the context of FRBRoo as a DSL/extension of #cidocCRM with particular
> reference to the “serialization” character of print production, it may be
> useful to consider the ISSN.org’s contribution of PRESSoo, an
> extension/harmonization that brings serialization and continuation
> semantics to FRBRoo.
>
> The reference document is found here:
>
>
> *http://www.issn.org/the-centre-and-the-network/our-partners-and-projects/pressoo/*
> 
>
> and Patrick Le Boeuf’s presentation on behalf of the ISSN working group
> which developed this valuable contribution is here:
>
>  *http://www.slideshare.net/patrickleboeuf/20130719-pres-soo*
> 
>
>
> Happy-Healthy Vibes,
> -: Jim :-
>
> Jim Salmons
> Twitter: @Jim_Salmons, @FactMiners, @Softalk_Apple
> *www.FactMiners.org* (Open Source
> #Play2Learn game community)
> *www.SoftalkApple.com* (first
> FactMiners museum/archive project)
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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*
>   |
> --
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
> --
>
> Exposition *Piaf
> *
> - du 14 avril 2015 au 23 ao?t 2015 - BnF - Fran?ois-Mitterrand | *Derniers
> jours*
>
> *Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement.*
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>

[Crm-sig] CRMinf- are there any pending changes not in the 0.7 drafts?

[Simon Spero]

Does anybody know if there are specific changes to the document that have
been made or which are pending?

Thanks,

Simon

Re: [Crm-sig] CRM HW: issue 252

[Simon Spero]

I think the use of "about" may be confusing  (at least to me).

I've got a vague feeling that there might be some benefit in

(a)  making explicit the quotational nature of the elements of a belief ,
in the way that the "(that )" operator in IKL does.

(b) making explicit what may be inferred about what a Believer believes,
based on set of believed sentences.
Doxastic logics (logics about belief) have many of the same problems as
epistemic logics.

For example,
if Fred believes that "P" and
   Fred believes that "Q"
   it may not be the case that Fred believes that "P and Q", even though
the latter is entailed by classical propositional logic.

CRM doesn't need the fancy stuff, but it might be good to make the rules a
little bit more explicit (this seems to be the direction the edit is
going).

Cyc has the useful concept of the propositional content of a work, which
denoted the microtheory containing all the propositions expressed by the
work.  This seems to be close to what is being described here.

Simon
On Feb 3, 2015 7:54 AM, "martin"  wrote:

>  Dear All,
>
> I'd like to revise:
> Scope note:This class comprises the sets of formal, binary
> propositions that an I2 Belief is held about. It
>   could be implemented as a named graph, a spreadsheet or any other
> structured data-set.   Regardless the
> specific syntax employed, the effective propositions it contains should be
>  constituted  by unambiguous
> identifiers, concepts of a formal ontology and constructs of logic.
>
> On 2/2/2015 5:20 μμ, martin wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> CRM Inf I4 Proposition Set has the following scope note:
>
> Scope note:This class comprises the sets of propositions that an
> I2 Belief is held about. It could be implemented as a named graph, a
> spreadsheet or any other structured data-set.
>
> I believe this is not clear enough in contrast to E89 Propositional Object.
>
> I propose:
>
> Scope note:This class comprises the sets of formal, binary
> propositions that an I2 Belief is held about. It could be implemented as a
> named graph, a spreadsheet or any other structured data-set. Regardless
> the specific
> syntax employed, the effective propositions it contains should be
> constituted  by unambiguous identifiers and concepts of a formal ontology.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
>  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   |
> --
>
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>

Re: [Crm-sig] Disjunct properties

[Simon Spero]

On Jan 12, 2015 7:25 AM, "Dan Matei"  wrote:
>
> PS. I this way I could handle even disjunct properties with different
predicates. As – for instance — the major ontological contribution of a
(Hungarian) Transylvanian peasant:
>
> (Context: between the Wars). One day, the main road of the village is
crossed by a turtle. Huge amazement: the villagers did not see a thing like
that before. So they quickly ask for their wisest and most knowledgeable
guy, Sanyi Bácsi [Old Sandor/Alexander] (he attended the Great War !).
Sanyi Bácsi comes quickly, takes a good look and concludes: "This either is
something OR is going somewhere."

The example above  is ontologically and logically far more complicated than
the original question! Assuming a world in which the story describes an
actual occurrence (it can be the actual world,  a fictional world, or a
possible world; dealer's choice).

1) There's an indexical embedded in a speech act.

2) The indexical may be interpreted as referring to a tangible individual,
or to an instance of an action/event (a Going) performed by the tangible
individual.

3) The described incident occurs over a brief interval of time. Sub events
are relatively ordered, but the time span is unknown.

4) The described incident is a subinterval of a rough (not fuzzy) bounded
period of time (between the end of WWI and the start of WWII).

5) The named actor is described as a "(Hungarian) Transylvanian" peasant,
where at the time of the actor's birth, Hungarian would be an accurate
label for nationality and ethnicity; at the time of utterance could could
refer only to ethnicity;for a period of time after might refer to both, and
post war would be ethnicity only. Geophysical, geopolitical, and temporal
issues collide (cataloging rules too).

It's interesting how many of these issues are within the scope of the CRM.
I'm not sure off the top of my head how appellations whose references
*appear* to change over time are handled ( if names are rigid).

Simon

Re: [Crm-sig] New ISO standard!!

[Simon Spero]

Congratulations and sympathy!  Despite its location, the ISO process does
not follow the Geneva Conventions :)  [W3 rant removed]

Are there any major changes between 5.0.4 Final  and ISO 21127:2014?

Simon

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:31 AM, martin  wrote:

>New version of ISO 21127 available
>
> Nick Crofts
> 
>  Specialist
> in cultural heritage information Top Contributor
>
> A new version of ISO 21127 (the ISO version of the CIDOC Conceptual
> Reference Model) is now available. ISO 21127:2014 A reference ontology for
> the interchange of cultural heritage information supersedes ISO 21127:2006.
>
> The ISO publication is available in English and French and can be
> purchased online. The updated standard includes many revisions and
> corrections and a helpful diagrammatic representation of the ontology.
>
>
> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=57832
> 
>
>  It's based on version 5.0.4 of the CIDOC CRM.
>
> Congratulations and our great gratitude to Nick Crofts for managing this
> process
> successfully!
>
> Best,
>
> 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   |
> --
>
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>

Re: [Crm-sig] A hoard as crm:E78_Collection ?

[Simon Spero]

I'm not entirely sure that this is the right reading of Wickett et. al.;
the issue seems that in  the CRM, roles are conflated, or at least fused.

It is a plausible reading that  donating a private collection to an archive
must cause the identity of the collection to change (with the archival
collection being a derivative, (possibly improper) sub-collection of the
donated collection.

This could be the case if the intensional definition of the collection as
received by the archive necessarily includes the identity of the donor
(though presumably the indexing, once resolved, would not require the
identity of the collection to change if transferred to another
institution).

It could also be the case if the  collection policy /plan is an identity
criterion, and necessarily changes when the curator changes.

However this reading would seem to require any change in policy or plan to
form a new intensional collection, even if the change in policy is one that
a priori cannot change the contents or description of the former collection
(e.g an institution wide policy requiring that "all unicorns will be stored
in vibranium edged boxes").

Since I am rarely on the "same" page as Karen wrt identity I'm checking
with the editor :-)

Simon
On Nov 30, 2014 11:19 AM, "martin"  wrote:

>  Dear Simon,
>
> This is an interesting discussion. Preserving things others have collected
> has been described as
> "SECONDARY COLLECTOR CONTEXT" and is well distinguished in archival
> practice to my knowledge.
> See also:
> https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/45860/EDM-DCC_Whitepaper_Final20131009.pdf?sequence=3
> The case had been discussed when we defined E78. The "collection in the
> collection" can either be
> seen as one object in  a collection, or, if incompletely acquired , the
> secondary collection plan can be to acquire  the missing parts to the
> original collection, or, to continue the primary collector's plan. In any
> case, the original collector was a curator to the collection.
>
> All the best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 29/11/2014 11:57 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:
>
> The definition of Collection possibly overly restrictive, even from an
> archival point of view.
>
> An collection of records will probably have  been assembled by a different
> agent to the curator; materials may be discarded as "not archival", but if
> the fonds gets respect, the curator is not free to do much assembling.
>
> It is possible to finesse this by a sufficiently broad reading of "plan",
> but it seems as if the roles of assembling curating/preserving are
> intrinsically linked in the CRM (I ought to take a look at the old EAD
> mapping) .
>
> Simon
>  On Nov 29, 2014 3:32 PM, "Stephen Stead"  wrote:
>
>>  Martin
>>
>> The problem probably lies in the word “Collection”! Everyone reads that
>> and thinks that the defining characteristic is the act of collecting rather
>> than the true differentiator which is the curation.
>>
>> Perhaps changing the name to “E78 Curated Set” would solve the problem.
>> Nobody would know what it meant and so would read the scope note
>>
>> TTFN
>>
>> SdS
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephen Stead
>>
>> Tel +44 20 8668 3075 <%2B44%2020%208668%203075>
>>
>> Mob +44 7802 755 013 <%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
>>
>> 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 *
>> martin
>> *Sent:* 29 November 2014 19:07
>> *To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] A hoard as crm:E78_Collection ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Continuing:
>>
>> I don't know, why E78 Collection attracts so much attention. The scope
>> note of
>> E19 Physical Object says:
>>
>> "The class also includes all aggregates of objects made for functional
>> purposes of whatever kind, independent of physical coherence, such as a set
>> of chessmen. Typically, instances of E19 Physical Object can be moved (if
>> not too heavy)."
>>
>>
>> The CRM is not a terminological system to classify things. It is made to
>> provide relevant properties. We should only use a more specific class, if
>> we expect the respective additional  properties to be relevant for
>> querying. To say that an E19 "has type: Hoard" should be enough. Only if
>> we want to specify a curator and an E87 Curation Activity with a curation
>> plan, using E78 Collection would be adequate. The less classes we use, the
>> more effective the queries.
>&

Re: [Crm-sig] A hoard as crm:E78_Collection ?

[Simon Spero]

The definition of Collection possibly overly restrictive, even from an
archival point of view.

An collection of records will probably have  been assembled by a different
agent to the curator; materials may be discarded as "not archival", but if
the fonds gets respect, the curator is not free to do much assembling.

It is possible to finesse this by a sufficiently broad reading of "plan",
but it seems as if the roles of assembling curating/preserving are
intrinsically linked in the CRM (I ought to take a look at the old EAD
mapping) .

Simon
 On Nov 29, 2014 3:32 PM, "Stephen Stead"  wrote:

> Martin
>
> The problem probably lies in the word “Collection”! Everyone reads that
> and thinks that the defining characteristic is the act of collecting rather
> than the true differentiator which is the curation.
>
> Perhaps changing the name to “E78 Curated Set” would solve the problem.
> Nobody would know what it meant and so would read the scope note
>
> TTFN
>
> 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 *
> martin
> *Sent:* 29 November 2014 19:07
> *To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] A hoard as crm:E78_Collection ?
>
>
>
> Continuing:
>
> I don't know, why E78 Collection attracts so much attention. The scope
> note of
> E19 Physical Object says:
>
> "The class also includes all aggregates of objects made for functional
> purposes of whatever kind, independent of physical coherence, such as a set
> of chessmen. Typically, instances of E19 Physical Object can be moved (if
> not too heavy)."
>
>
> The CRM is not a terminological system to classify things. It is made to
> provide relevant properties. We should only use a more specific class, if
> we expect the respective additional  properties to be relevant for
> querying. To say that an E19 "has type: Hoard" should be enough. Only if
> we want to specify a curator and an E87 Curation Activity with a curation
> plan, using E78 Collection would be adequate. The less classes we use, the
> more effective the queries.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 29/11/2014 2:45 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>
> In the case a curator in a museum buries his collection, a hoard may be 
> considered as as a collection. The collection class is intended for museum 
> collections, see the examples in the scope note.
>
>
>
> C-E
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr 
> ] On Behalf Of Dan Matei
>
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 1:30 PM
>
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>
> Subject: [Crm-sig] A hoard as crm:E78_Collection ?
>
>
>
> Friends
>
>
>
> I have to say that a particular coin is a member of a particular hoard. I 
> googled
>
> to see how others are dealing with that, but...
>
>
>
> I'm tempted to:
>
>
>
>   
>
>
>
>   
>
>
>
> abusing a bit the E78 scope note:
>
>
>
> "This class comprises aggregations of instances of E18 Physical Thing that are
>
> assembled and maintained (“curated” and “preserved,” in museological
>
> terminology) by one or more instances of E39 Actor over time for a specific
>
> purpose and audience, and according to a particular collection development
>
> plan."
>
>
>
>
>
> The "... according to a particular collection development plan." troubles me.
>
> Can we say that the guy burying a hoard had a "collection development plan" ?
>
>
>
> There is a better practice for modelling that ?
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> PS. Not to mention that I would like to associate the discovery event with the
>
> hoard, not with the coin.
>
>
>
> ___
>
> 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   |
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] Coins 2 CRM (again)

[Simon Spero]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore <
c.e.s@iln.uio.no> wrote:

>
> The design of the faces of  a coin is usually the result of a human's
> intentional work.
> F2 Expression:
> " This class comprises the intellectual or artistic realisations of works
> in the form of identifiable immaterial objects, such as texts, poems,
> jokes, musical or choreographic notations, movement pattern, sound pattern,
> images, multimedia objects, or any combination of such forms that have
> objectively recognisable structures. The substance of F2 Expression is
> signs."
>

I think that *substance* is also a useful concept here.

I would postulate that for CRM purposes, ten €100 gold coins struck in the
3rd year of the reign of Emperor Millibus,  displayed by a museum on Great
Russell Brand St, then seized, melted down, struck in the form of  ten 100
Farange coins, then returned and displayed, would be considered to be the
same ten coins, even though they are constituted of the same gold.

Similarly, if half of the euro coins are swapped with indistinguishable
coins from the same issue, the collection before and after would not be
considered to be unchanged.

If one accepts this stance, then it follows that each coin is considered to
be an individual.  It is possible that one might consider the sets of coins
to also be individuals.

If the exchange rate is pegged at €1 = 1 Farange, the intrinsic and fiat
value all the sets of coins is the same.  In a CHO context this ought not
to affect ones stance on the identity of the two sets (in a CHF setting,
different concepts may apply).

Coins were created to express  propositions ("This thing weighs ",
"This thing is made of Electrum", "Made in Lydia", "Lions are cool").  They
are information bearing objects, and this information distinguishes the
coinage from an equivalent weight of metal.  (I would consider them to be
documents, but that stance is not necessary)

Simon

[ I use future hypotheticals to allow for knowledge of the coins history
without requiring time travel. However,
http://davidtennantontwitter.blogspot.com/2012/07/david-tennant-doctor-who-banknote-in.html
]

Re: [Crm-sig] reified association vs sub-event

[Simon Spero]

On Oct 15, 2014 11:45 AM, "Richard Light" light.demon.co.uk >
wrote:

I. Properties of properties.

> If you do this, the subproperty simply takes the place of the original
more generic property in an RDF expression of the statement, and the result
is a meaningful RDF triple.  If, instead, you try to express "property of a
property" as RDF, you find that you are trying to construct a triple with a
predicate as its object; something RDF does not allow.

This paragraph may confuse some people so I would add some clarifications.

1. It's perfectly ok to make property assertions whose subjects are
properties, in both RDF and in OWL 2. These assertions are about the
property itself, rather than any particular use of the property.

2. It is possible to make property assertions whose value is a property, in
both RDF and OWL. For example one could state that a class has subclasses
that are partitioned based on the value of the specified property.

3. In OWL 2 it is possible to add annotations to a property assertion
axiom. These annotations are only about the particular act of assertion,
rather than what is being asserted.

4. In RDF it is possible to make assertions about an RDF statement by using
the RDF reification mechanism. RDF reification is generally considered to
be pretty bad (a reified statement does not even entail the original
statement).

II. Subproperties vs. Reified associations

1. Using subproperties instead of reified entities makes it easier to use
off-the-shelf reasoners.  For example, if there are constraints that apply
to a particular role, it may require creating one or more new subclasses to
which the constraints may be applied (these can, of course, be anonymous,
but that may not make things easier to use).

Additionally there may be optimizations for retrieval of subproperties that
are not otherwise available.

2. Using reified associations labelled with concepts from a version of SKOS
supporting hierarchical relationships does not automatically entail that
hierarchy for the associations.

III.  Roles and subevents.

It is possible to treat subevents as a subclass of roles, but the typical
motivation would be if the sub-event was an event in its own right. See eg.
http://www.cyc.com/tutorials/roles-and-event-predicates

IV. Other meanings of "Role" in applied ontology.

Some schools of thought use the term Role to refer to things like a being a
Producer. Because some person may not always be or have been a Producer,
they do not consider it appropriate for that individual to be an instance
of Producer.
DOLCE and related work tend to follow this approach.

An alternative is to treat the person-as-producer as a subpart of the
person, or to treat class membership as holding in an interval.

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Simon Spero]

hen integrating different sources.
> (Before,
> >one could say AI just slept in a one-truth cyberworld with a god-like
> user or
> >math on top of reality).
> >
> >I believe we need the Named Graph construct as a logical form, not as an
> RDF
> >syntax, if we want to integrate provenance of knowledge with the CRM. So
> >far, we have evidence of two real-life data structures, one is
> archaeological
> >excavation records, and another description of medieval book-bindings,
> which
> >systematically register source of evidence and concluded facts. E.g.,
> geometric
> >topology of stratigarphic units and microsopic stratigraphic interface
> >properties are used to justify chronological sequence. In a simple model,
> this
> >is atomic, in a more general, it is probabilistic Bayesian. So, we would
> need a
> >"Typed Named Graph", which restricts the propositions in the Graph to a
> >certain schema (topology, chronology), and then a relationship "is
> evidence
> >for"
> >between the typed named graphs. The assertion itself forms part of the
> belief
> >implicit in the archaeological record.
> >
> >If there is any logician on this mailing list, a proper formulation of
> such a
> >construct and an abstract syntax for the CRM would be great to have!!!
> >
> >We will try to suggest a graphic primitive, which is a bubble around the
> >propositions with a "hot spot" on the perimeter.
> >
> >Suggestions most welcome!
> >
> >
> >
> >   To pick up on the suggestion of using the AAT as an example: in
> what
> >way is the AAT a named graph?  Surely it's a SKOS Concept Scheme (plus)?
>  I
> >think it would be impossible to give an example of a "well-known" named
> >graph, for the reasons Simon has been explaining.
> >
> >
> >Named Graphs are new, so none is really "well known", but I would regard a
> >skosified AAT as a Named Graph, as well as all the RDF junks for LoD,
> once RDF
> >regards any RDF file as a Named Graph. The only condition is, that two RDF
> >Files with the same content and different URI are not regarded as being
> >identical (owl:same_as).
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >Martin
> >
> >
> >
> >   Richard
> >
> >
> >   On 25/07/2014 20:25, martin wrote:
> >
> >
> >   Dear Richard,
> >
> >   At least in the implementations we use one triple can be
> in any
> >number of graphs, even nested ones
> >   (SESAME, Virtuoso, OWLIM).
> >
> >   The point Steve is making here that Named Graphs are the
> >only way in which facts in a database can be
> >   described as explicit content of multiple(!) information
> objects
> >which are described (creation etc.) in the
> >   same system. There is no other choice for implementing
> >argumentation systems which explicitly describe
> >   premises and conclusions as propositions in the database.
> >
> >
> >   On 24/7/2014 11:03 πμ, Richard Light wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >   I must say that I'm not so sure that named graphs
> are
> >going to be particularly useful for implementations of the CRM.  As I
> >understand it (and I don't claim to be an RDF expert), the idea of quads
> was
> >invented so that "naked" RDF assertions could be given a "context".  The
> >problem I have always had with that idea is that you only get one shot at
> it (i.e.
> >you can only assign one context to any given triple).
> >
> >   Surely (a) we need to be able to express multiple
> >contexts for statements made within the CRM, (b) we have already
> >developed a rich enough use of RDF to allow us to do so.
> >
> >   Richard
> >
> >
> >   On 24/07/2014 05:57, Simon Spero wrote:
> >
> >
> >   The AAT might work.
> >   I'm not entirely sure that named graphs are
> >propositional objects as defined in the CRM, but I think the definition
> is loose
> >enough.
> >
> >   Named graphs are not graphs that are named;
> >they are a tuple of an IRI (which is a name), and graph (which is the set
> of
> >propositions). If the name is a proposition, it is not one in the graph
> it is
> >associated with.
> >
> >   If Propositional

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Simon Spero]

To clarify (or obfuscate),

The term "named graph", as used in  RDF, is defined in section 4 of the RDF
1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax Recommendation
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-dataset>.

Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-iri> or a blank node (the graph
name), and an RDF graph <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-rdf-graph>
.
[...]

NOTE

Despite the use of the word “name” in “named graph
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-named-graph>”, the graph name
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-graph-name> is not required to
denote <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-denote> the graph. It is
merely syntactically paired with the graph. RDF does not place any formal
restrictions on what resource
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-resource> the graph name may
denote, nor on the relationship between that resource and the graph. A
discussion of different RDF dataset semantics can be found in [
RDF11-DATASETS <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#bib-RDF11-DATASETS>].

 I have no problems with having an  entity that made of one part that is a
 Propositional Object, and another part that is an IRI. The obvious
identity criteria for such an entity would include both components - two
"named graph"s with different IRI parts would be distinct.

( I also have no problem with the  Cyc mereological approach to the
relationship between conceptual works and information bearing objects, so
my judgement is suspect).


Simon


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM, martin  wrote:

>  Dear Simon,
>
> I am not sure if I understand your argument. Any informartion object might
> quite well have a name.
> In particular it has an identity as a unit, and being a unit is not equal
> to any of its propositions. This is probably
> the same as modelling the Named Graphs as tuples (name, set).
>
> I'd however question your statement:
> "Named graphs are not graphs that are named; they are a tuple..." I'd say,
> they are graphs that are named
> in the framework of RDF encoding using a particular syntax. They can be
> modelled mathematically as tuples"
> A tuple (name, set) is equally meaningless out of the context to which
> such a model refers to. It could be
> anything you would like to use it for. That's maths. Isn't it?
>
> In other words, yes, an information object has not only content. It has a
> unity, an identity, and even a provenance.
>
> The question is, if two information objects are identical if the contain
> the same set of symbols or propositions
> but have different provenance. This is particularly a problem with very
> small information objects.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24/7/2014 7:57 πμ, Simon Spero wrote:
>
> The AAT might work.
> I'm not entirely sure that named graphs are propositional objects as
> defined in the CRM, but I think the definition is loose enough.
>
> Named graphs are not graphs that are named; they are a tuple of an IRI
> (which is a name), and graph (which is the set of propositions). If the
> name is a proposition, it is not one in the graph it is associated with.
>
> If Propositional objects can include parts which are not propositions then
> there is no problem- though it would seem more natural to have information
> objects only part of which are propositional.
> That would be a bit too  big a change this far down the road ; if named
> graphs can't fit directly, graphs themselves would; these could be part of
> named graphs.
> On Jul 24, 2014 12:15 AM, "Stephen Stead"  wrote:
>
>> Can you think of a named graph that would be sufficiently iconic to make a
>> good example?
>> Rgds
>> SdS
>>
>> Stephen Stead
>> Tel +44 20 8668 3075 <%2B44%2020%208668%203075>
>> Mob +44 7802 755 013 <%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
>> E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
>> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Øyvind
>> Eide
>> Sent: 23 July 2014 15:12
>> To: crm-sig
>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73
>> Information Object to specifically include named graphs
>>
>> Dear Steve,
>>
>> This sounds good to me. Do you think an example of a named graph should be
>> added as well?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Øyvind
>>
>> On 18. juli 2014, at 08:44, Stephen Stead wrote:
>>
>> > Dear CRM-SIG
>> > I would like to suggest the following revision to the scope note for E73
>> Information Object. Its intention is to specifically me

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Simon Spero]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Richard Light 
wrote:

>
> I must say that I'm not so sure that named graphs are going to be
> particularly useful for implementations of the CRM.  As I understand it
> (and I don't claim to be an RDF expert), the idea of quads was invented so
> that "naked" RDF assertions could be given a "context".  The problem I have
> always had with that idea is that you only get one shot at it (i.e. you can
> only assign one context to any given triple).
>

A triple is a true proposition*; duplicates are redundant (A and A <-> A).
 However, there can be multiple speech acts asserting that the  proposition
is true.  There are ways of giving semantics to named graphs that enable
that; however, the semantics of named graphs were deliberately left
underspecified (a decision that was not uncontroversial).

In the end, what was published was a Working Group Note listing some of the
possibilities that were argued for - see:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-datasets/ .

There are other possible semantics that named graphs might have ; for
example, the name in a named graph might denote some graph containing the
reified forms of the statements in the graph part of the named graph. This
differs from the quotational semantics given in §3.7 of the note cited
above given the presence of  blank nodes - ("one does not simply quantify
into quoted contexts!").

Since the CRM does not require that the propositional content of an
propositional object be true, it might be possible to avoid these questions
by dealing with  Graphs (as sets of propositions), and assertions of the
contents of those Graphs directly .

Simon

* which is why, now that RDF 1.1 make any triple will an ill-typed literal
false, any graph that contains such  triple is inconsistent.

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Simon Spero]

The AAT might work.
I'm not entirely sure that named graphs are propositional objects as
defined in the CRM, but I think the definition is loose enough.

Named graphs are not graphs that are named; they are a tuple of an IRI
(which is a name), and graph (which is the set of propositions). If the
name is a proposition, it is not one in the graph it is associated with.

If Propositional objects can include parts which are not propositions then
there is no problem- though it would seem more natural to have information
objects only part of which are propositional.
That would be a bit too  big a change this far down the road ; if named
graphs can't fit directly, graphs themselves would; these could be part of
named graphs.
On Jul 24, 2014 12:15 AM, "Stephen Stead"  wrote:

> Can you think of a named graph that would be sufficiently iconic to make a
> good example?
> Rgds
> 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
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Øyvind
> Eide
> Sent: 23 July 2014 15:12
> To: crm-sig
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73
> Information Object to specifically include named graphs
>
> Dear Steve,
>
> This sounds good to me. Do you think an example of a named graph should be
> added as well?
>
> Best,
>
> Øyvind
>
> On 18. juli 2014, at 08:44, Stephen Stead wrote:
>
> > Dear CRM-SIG
> > I would like to suggest the following revision to the scope note for E73
> Information Object. Its intention is to specifically mention “named graphs”
> as being instances of E73 Information Object. As we look at implementation
> of the CRM it is becoming increasingly obvious that “named graphs” are
> going
> to be a particularly useful tool, it would therefore seem handy if we
> explicitly mentioned that they live in E73!
> > Best regards
> > SdS
> >
> >
> > Current Scope Note
> > E73 Information Object
> > Subclass of:E89 Propositional Object
> > E90 Symbolic Object
> > Superclass of:E29 Design or Procedure
> > E31 Document
> > E33 Linguistic Object
> > E36 Visual Item
> >
> > Scope note:This class comprises identifiable immaterial items,
> such as a poems, jokes, data sets, images, texts, multimedia objects,
> procedural prescriptions, computer program code, algorithm or mathematical
> formulae, that have an objectively recognizable structure and are
> documented
> as single units.
> >
> > An E73 Information Object does not depend on a specific physical carrier,
> which can include human memory, and it can exist on one or more carriers
> simultaneously.
> > Instances of E73 Information Object of a linguistic nature should be
> declared as instances of the E33 Linguistic Object subclass. Instances of
> E73 Information Object of a documentary nature should be declared as
> instances of the E31 Document subclass. Conceptual items such as types and
> classes are not instances of E73 Information Object, nor are ideas without
> a
> reproducible expression.
> > Examples:
> > §  image BM38850.JPG from the Clayton Herbarium in London §  E. A.
> > Poe's "The Raven"
> > §  the movie "The Seven Samurai" by Akira Kurosawa §  the Maxwell
> > Equations
> > Properties:
> >
> > Revised Scope Note
> >
> > E73 Information Object
> > Subclass of:E89 Propositional Object
> > E90 Symbolic Object
> > Superclass of:E29 Design or Procedure
> > E31 Document
> > E33 Linguistic Object
> > E36 Visual Item
> >
> > Scope note:This class comprises identifiable immaterial items,
> such as a poems, jokes, data sets, images, texts, multimedia objects,
> procedural prescriptions, computer program code, algorithm or mathematical
> formulae, that have an objectively recognizable structure and are
> documented
> as single units. The encoding structure known as a “named graph” also falls
> under this class, so that each “named graph” is an instance of an E73
> Information Object.
> >
> > An E73 Information Object does not depend on a specific physical carrier,
> which can include human memory, and it can exist on one or more carriers
> simultaneously.
> > Instances of E73 Information Object of a linguistic nature should be
> declared as instances of the E33 Linguistic Object subclass. Instances of
> E73 Information Object of a documentary nature should be declared as
> instances of the E31 Document subclass. Conceptual items such as types and
> classes are not instances of E73 Information Object, nor are ideas without
> a
> reproducible expression.
> > Examples:
> > §  image BM38850.JPG from the Clayton Herbarium in London §  E. A.
> > Poe's "The Raven"
> > §  the movie "The Seven Samurai" by Akira Kurosawa §  the Maxwell
> > Equations
> > Properties:
> >
> >
> > Stephen Stead
> > Director
> > Paveprime Ltd
> > 35 Downs Court Rd
> > Purley, Surrey
> > UK, CR8 1BF
> > Tel +44 20 8668 3075
> > Fax +44 

Re: [Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRM issue

[Simon Spero]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Stead  wrote:

> The question is not could we generalise the property to E2 but are
> there potential instances of E2 that are not E3's or E4's that potentially
> do not have decomposition. I do not know and additionally I am not sure I
> want to
> spend a lot of time making sure that by their very nature all E2's
> are decomposable!!


This actually a rather significant ontological decision.
If there are temporal entities that cannot be so divided then the
underlying temporal ontology is *discrete. *
If every temporal entity  can always be so decomposed, then the underlying
temporal ontology is *dense*.

CRM is committed to a dense ontology (because of the approximate model of
time points, and the rejection of any momentary events*) , so it would seem
all E2 must be decomposable.

It is of course, not the case that the type of every part is the same as
the type of the whole; conversely, there may be certain granularities where
each part *is* of the same type - e.g. the granularity of a step, each part
of a walk is also a walk.

Simon
* e.g. "the upward velocity of the ball I just tossed becoming zero" is not
considered to be momentary, in spite of calculus, because the precise
beginning and end points are cannot be defined as equal, just not
distinguishable.

[Crm-sig] Proposal: Rename E74 from Group to GroupOfAgents

[Simon Spero]

*Title**Rename E74 from Group to GroupOfActors**Background* Let a 
be an aggregation of one or more members, where the identity of the 
is not determined solely by the members of the   (thus
distinguishing  from ).

>From the definition of P107, it is clear that every E74 refers to ;
otherwise the existence of a former member would imply that the group no
longer exists.

However, E74 has stronger semantics beyond that of a basic .  Every
member of an instance of E74 is a  all of whose members are
E39_Actor's.

 This restriction is not reflected in the label of E74, and can lead to
confusion.
*Old Proposal* *Current Proposal*Classes whose instances are , all
of whose members are instances of a specified class  should be
given labels of the form "Group of " where 
is the  plural form of the label of .

For E74, MemberClass is  Actor; this proposal would thus assign E74 the
label "Group Of Actors".

If OWL is used, a single membership property can be used, with restriction
classes used to specify member type.
(this also suggests that P107.1 may be awkwardly named, since it appears to
denote the role of a member within a group (a members role in a group may
change over time)*Outcome* *Status*proposed*Working Group*
*Starting Date**Closing Date*


[There are other changes I would suggest making to E74 separate from this
proposal.

- allowing groups to consist of only a single member

- considering whether a group may become dormant (have zero members), then
gain new members, yet retain its identity as the same group - that is,
whether the group can be temporally discontinuous. This would cover, for
example, a student society that publishes journals, , is inactive for a
year or so, then reforms.

There are also issues with P107 and P107.1  ]

Simon

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:31 AM, martin  wrote:

>  Dear Joao,
>
> Your comments well taken! - one of the most important principles of the
> CRM is that
> the label is never a definition. In 15 years, we could never reconcile
> linguistic values with
> clear semantics under the functional restrictions of the CRM.
>
> The label is only a mnemonic, the definition is exlusively the scope note,
> and the identity
> exclusively the E-number. If this could be better pointed out in our
> documentation,
> comments are MOST welcome.
>
> The definition of "group" by Guarino& Welty has nothing to do with E74
> Group. Actually,
> he is talking about what other ontologies would call an "aggregate", like
> ORE's
> "ore:aggregation", or an enumeration, sometimes even a collection. We
> cannot avoid that other ontologies use different senses for the same word.
> However, we commit to the point Guarino is making here: E74 Group is
> "constituted by" an aggregate of persons. The CRM property "has former or
> current member" is a kind of constitution exactly in the sense of Guarino.
>
> Our reasons to use the label "Group" was to be close to one natural use of
> the term, such as
> a "Working Group", a "group" of (joined) industries, a group of hikers, a
> discussion group etc. which imply common intentions, temporarily or
> permanently.
>
> It's always a hard decision to coin new terms, which make  the ontology
> appear more and more alien, but do not relieve from good definitions in the
> end.
>
> Any renaming proposals are also always welcome, and will be treated as
> issues.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 28/4/2014 4:15 μμ, João Oliveira Lima wrote:
>
>  Dear Stephen Stead and Simon Spero,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
>
>
> The picture is clearer but some doubts remains.
>
>
>
> Maybe the term "Group" is not best to denominate the "Collective
> Actor" because the term "Group" is intrinsically tied with the
> "constitution" idea. See, for example, the follow example extracted from
> "An Overview of Ontoclean" (Guarino & Welty, Handbook on Ontologies,
> Springer Verlag, (2004)):
>
>
>
> "Take for instance two typical examples of social entities, such as a
> bridge club and a poker club. These are clearly two separate entities, even
> though precisely the same people may participate in both. Thus we would
> have a state of affairs where, if the social entity was the group of
> people, the two clubs would be the same under the identity criteria of the
> group, and different under the identity criteria of the social entity. Note
> also that if a club changes its members it is still the same club, but a
> different group of people. The solution to the puzzle is that this is, once
> again, a constitution relationship: a club is constituted of a group of
> people.".
>

[Crm-sig] Fwd: ISSUE 240: Start/End vs Period of Existence

[Simon Spero]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, martin  wrote:

>
> We adopted Allen's temporal logic, probably prematurely, thinking we could
> rely on
> a well received theory. In the meanwhile, it turns out that Allen's logic
> does not work
> properly both for fuzzy dates and for incomplete knowledge. There are
> temporal relations
> which come from observation, but can only be represented by OR
> combinations of Allen's
> relationships. That causes problems in RDF - we need superproperties of
> Allen's to represent
> an OR. The other problem is that equality in time can only come from
> numerical declaration
> of a date, but not from observation, except if the event is identical.
>

Pat Hayes's  catalog of temporal theories may help clarify things. Section
4.1 et. seq. are particularly relevant, but it's better to read the whole
thing.

Hayes, PJ (1996) A Catalog of Temporal Theories. Technical Report
UIUC-BI-AI-96-01, University of Illinois.
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/docs/timeCatalog.pdf

Some axiomatizations have been further refined  by Gruninger and Ong - see
e.g. http://stl.mie.utoronto.ca/publications/colore-time.pdf

See the colore ontology repository at https://code.google.com/p/colore/
e.g.

https://code.google.com/p/colore/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fontologies%2Fapproximate_point

Simon