Re: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Quantifiers of P140,P141,P177
Dear all, I think this should be discussed in terms of the issue 602 ; From my understanding, a new specialized class of Attribute Assignment can observe and describe more than one propositions and situations and properties of this class will function as umbrella for the previous sub-properties of p140 and P141 - I think this is a proposal, expressed in 602, which assigns new semantics to E13 and makes it an argumentation class (so, this is part of the discussion and the schema proposed for 602 and maybe a solution to the problem) BRs, Athina On 2024-09-24 11:36, Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig wrote: Dear All, Just quickly jotting down the questions I had (I hope I don't misquote anyone): 1) If E13 Attribute Assignment is problematic and should be used only for reifications, would that mean that P140, P141 can no longer have any subproperties? Christian-Emil: E13 shouldn't be restricted to reifications George: sort out CRMbase first, then the extensions And would we then need a new Class / superproperties, not with (1,1:—,—) ? The properties still seem to want to be grouped. 2) If P38 "deassigned" doesn't have (1,1:—,—), does this also apply to P37 "assigned"? Think of having a list of URI identifiers and changing the base URL. George: argues that P38 should have (1,1:—,—) Christian-Emil: sees the point, and the same with measurement. Decouple it from E13. 3) Condition States: One Assessment may create more than one Condition State. But are there "objective" Condition States that do not come from a Condition Assessment? I.e. is the quantification of P35 "has identified" really (—,—:0,n), or is it (—,—:1,n) ? @Thanasis: sorry, I forgot which of the two versions would break some modelling principles. Best, Wolfgang Am 09.09.2024 um 15:14 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig : Dear Eleni, Please use the thread below for Issue 672. I propose to decide it in this SIG, with all down-stream implications Christian-Emil is pointing to. The comment in the last SIG: "This will have implications for the S25 Relative Dimension construct in sci." is obsolete. S25 will no more be under the umbrella of E13. This will be in the solution of issue 602, interface between CRMsci and CRMinf, consistently with the decision in CRMinf to regard E13 as subclass of I1 Argumentation, and not vice versa. Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Quantifiers of P140,P141,P177 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:10:22 +0200 From: Martin Doerr To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore On 3/20/2024 8:24 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: That is true. Thanasis pointed out that a single condition assessment may comprise more than one thing. So P34 concerned (was assessed by) should not be (1.1:0:n). In the other hand the same can be said about type assignment and P41 classified (was classified by) which currently is (1,1:0,n). So maybe we should reconsider all the properties listed in my email. Again E13 is a somewhat problematic class and should perhaps be confined to reifications. yes🙂🙂 Best, Christian-Emil From: Martin Doerr Sent: 19 March 2024 21:03 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Quantifiers of P140,P141,P177 On a second thought: "deassigned" should not be subproperty of P14 co1. It violates (1,1: 0,n), isn't it? On 3/19/2024 8:52 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: Dear Martin, I have read this issue a little late. I have no problem with your argumentation. There may be a side effect. P35: Quantification: many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n) For all x,y we have P37(x,y) ⇒ P141(x,y) Since the quantification of P35 is (1,n:0,n), then it may exist P37(a,b) and P37(a,c) and b is not c. (if not the quantification should be (1,1:0,n). From the subproperty definition P37(a,b) ⇒ P141(a,b) and P37(a,c) ⇒ P141(a,c) so we can conclude that P141(a,b) and P141(a,c) which contradicts the proposed quantification (1,1:0,n) of P141. In general a subproperty cannot have a less restrictive quantification than its superproperty. If I am correct we have check the scopenotes of P34, P35, P37, P38, P40, P42 P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by) Domain: E13 Attribute Assignment Range:E1 CRM Entity Superproperty of: E14 Condition Assessment. P34 concerned (was assessed by): E18 Physical Thing [ (1,n:0,n), not OK] E16 Measurement. P39 measured (was measured by): E18 Physical Thing [OK] E17 Type Assignment. P41 classified (was classified by): E1 CRM Entity [OK] P141 assigned (was assigned by) Domain: E13 Attribute Assignment Range:E1 CRM Entity Superproperty of: E14 Condition Assessment. P35 has identified (identified by): Ε3 Condition State [ (1,n:0,n), not OK] E15 Identifier Assignment. P37 assigned (was assigned by): E42 Identifier [ (0,n:0,n), not OK] E15 Identifier Assignment. P38 deassigned (was deassigned by): E42 Identifier [ (0,n:0,n), not OK] E16 Measurement. P40 observed dimension (was observed
[Crm-sig] partial HW for issue 556
Dear all, Please find homework regarding the Issue 556 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aPdMX-vlc5xG2LxrpZTPhVwBm0CrDpno/edit BRs Athina ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc
Dear George, all, I am not sure that the class PC0_Typed_CRM_Property should be a subclass of E1. In my understanding, this class implies a situation concluded in an epistemological context. I am also not sure if the provenance we are looking for in this set of statements is a kind of E13. I am just wondering. BRs, Athina On 2023-03-29 16:36, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: Dear all, When using the PC classes modelling structure we end up with a class node for a property which we can then modify with things like 'kinds' and 'modes' etc. Since such a statement has meaning and comes from somewhere [e.g.: that someone did something in some capacity (PC14 carried out by ... P02 has range E39 + P14.1 in the role of E55)] one sometimes needs to provenance this statement with an E13 attribute assignment. Ie we want to ground who made this claim. In theory this would be done with E13 pointing to the node in the typical fashion (p141, P140). However, the class PC0_Typed_CRM_Property is not declared as a subtype of E1 CRM Entity in the PC extension file. As a result we cannot do this. https://cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/7.1.1/CIDOC_CRM_v7.1.1_PC.rdfs I would argue PC0_Typed_CRM_Property should be declared a subclass of E1_CRM_Entity. Then it would be consistent with the rest of the modelling. Opinions? Best, George ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Typo in Archaeo RDFS?
Dear George, it has been renamed and the crm-sig accepted the change of the label of S20 Physical Feature to S20 Rigid Physical Feature on the 37th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG BRs, Athina On 2023-01-20 13:44, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: Dear all, Whilst doing some Archaeo implementation in Arches, Takin.solutions noticed a typo in the latest stable RDF for archaeo. 1.4.1 https://cidoc-crm.org/crmarchaeo/ModelVersion/version-1.4.1 The RDF reads: Stratigraphic Unit This class comprises S20 Physical Features that are either A2 Stratigraphic Volume Units or A3 Stratigraphic Interfaces http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/CRMsci/S20_Physical_Feature"/> The reference to S20 is Physical Feature but should be Rigid Physical Feature. I think S20 was always called "Rigid Physical Feature". If so this seems to be a typo and should perhaps be corrected? Cheers, George -- George Bruseker, PhD Chief Executive Officer Takin.solutions Ltd. https://www.takin.solutions/ ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] issue 557
Dear all, Regarding my HW (refer the publicly accessible archival material from SeaLit and find the fields that Spectrum uses to document museum transactions), you can find the reference in this doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r5mgVbLmD3bwjgaWkyQapHedpplSvXEe/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs and a selection of related Spectrum categories in this https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zsoc6tCRum6OuTSveqqbpuX9D1UoRjyt/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs There is also helpful material regarding Spectrum (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HyVxXE456MEx4MycNk3gf4UtjvANvx4H), such as an old mapping (SPECTRUM TO CIDOC CRM) and the model I proposed during 52 CIDOC CRM Meeting) BRs Athina ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] HW ffor issue 587
Dear all, Please find homework regarding the research queries prepared by me and Pavlos for Issue 587 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12tq1mXe4EFoZEgtyKxyN4vi0kqfUZfgj/edit BRs Athina ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] issue 623
Hello all, I reformulate the issue, adding background information regarding a few classes, that would be helpful for the discussion: Problematic" examples randomly shift from the present to the past tense (f.i. O7, O13), have been marked as "not revised" (anyhting in highlight) or simply "missing". Classes/ properties whose examples need be revised include: S9 (S9 Property Type: issue 332: It is postponed, it should be considered together with the issue related to redoing S4 - the review of the definition of this class has been postponed), S15 (issue 332:It is postponed because the whole entity is under review), S20 (issue 332: sig accepted the examples but asked Athina to improve the syntax of 4th example), S22 (issue 332: the sig reviewed the scope note and decided to ask SS and MD to elaborate it further up to the next meeting. The example is rejected. We need an example of a ‘baulk’ from an archaeological record), S23 (related to the open issue 612), O3, O4, O5, O6, O8, Ο10, Ο11, Ο13, Ο15, Ο17, Ο18, Ο19, Ο20, Ο21, Ο23, Ο25 Athina ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE regarding CRM SCI: UPDATE THE SCOPE NOTE OF S3
Dear all, Regarding the issues 537 and 531 and specifically the discussion on the implications of the decision to classify E16 Measurement as a subclass of S21 Measurement in CRMsci, I realized that this is not reflected in the current scope note of S3 Measurement by Sampling. In my opinion, the phrase "inherits...the properties of S21 (E16) Measurement. P40 observed dimension: E54 Dimension, ..." is no longer valid and should be changed. BRs, Athina ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Delete E35 Title
Dear all, I follow up this comment with the information that the issue is 340 (apart from 533 for E34) and the minutes is from 44th crm-sig meeting. For me, the formulation of the CRM issues list is very important and helpful to such questions arising regarding the standard. BRs Athina On 2022-11-09 15:51, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote: Dear Robert, All, To my best knowledge, Title, Site and Inscription had been on the list of classes potentially to be deleted, when the current principles for minimality had been formulated. The respective decision not to delete is documented in some minutes. It was extensively discussed and voted. Following our rules, this decision can only be undone in a new issue, if new, different evidence is provided. This rule is to ensure some continuity for a standard, and economy of work. Currently, I see no new evidence. Best, Martin On 11/8/2022 10:33 PM, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote: I propose that E35 Title also does not legitimately rise to the requirements of being a named class in CRM Base. In particular: * It does not have its own properties * While it is the range of P102, P102 is indistinguishable semantically from its super-property, P1. Read the scope notes and replace "title" with "name" and it comes out the same. If that is *not* the case, then we would need a property that relates E1 and E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation, at which point we would need to give a number of E33_E41. * It can be replaced without semantic loss by E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation, perhaps further clarified by the addition of domain specific vocabulary (supplied title vs artist's title) using P2_has_type * It does not have any sub-classes. And so, it can safely be deleted. Rob -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- Dr. Martin Doerr Honorary Head of the Center for Cultural Informatics Information Systems Laboratory Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece Vox:+30(2810)391625 Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33
Dear all, I fully agree that we must follow the principles of the ontology development and remove classes that do not fulfil the criteria of being classes in CRM Base. But, in my opinion, for specific classes of this kind (that they seem not to fulfill the criteria because they don't have properties ), such as Inscription, we should make an issue not to delete, but to discuss the alternatives of removing this class and maybe to remember the initial purpose of use of this class or to find if there is an open issue regarding this - For E34, there is the issue 533; So, my question is: what about the classes that we have introduced in CRM base or in other compatible models, such as S7 Simulation or S5 in sci, which have no properties at all, but, as I remember very well, the argument for introducing them (I am speaking for sci) was that that they are domain specific but we haven't yet developed them, but we intend to do so in future. - should we delete them? E34 has not been developed, in my understanding, and it is now replaced by CRM tex. So the issue , in my opinion, should be (for this class) how we sychronize and not delete. BRs, Athina On 2022-11-08 23:25, Mark Fichtner via Crm-sig wrote: Dear all, while I must agree with Rob that the three classes he proposed for deletion are not a particular best pratice in ontology building from a semantic point of view, I don't feel good with the direction the CRM is going currently. At our museum we are following the CRM because it is the only "really standardized" standard for our domain. It is expressive enough for a full top level ontology while also covering the domain of cultural heritage. We are not interested in yet another standard that maps metadata in a very common way - we have enough of these and if we would want to use dublin core we would do so. The full potential of the CRM is what binds us to using it. Concepts like "Title" are really important for our domain - it is one of the most important metadata fields for documentation in our museum. With the abolishment of properties and classes in CRM Base that were used a lot in the past the SIG and the CRM takes a turn away from the museum side of documentation towards being a very general ontology. While I know development may always hurt a little bit, this does not feel right in any way anymore. I am asking myself: Is this really what the CIDOC CRM should do? Is it possible for the CIDOC CRM to survive in comparison to standards that are more widely spread while abolishing it's own user base? Do we really want a domain ontology - extending CRM Base called "CRM Museum Documentation Ontology" because we throw out everything that is museum related out of CRM Base? At least I might have my long loved E84 Information Carrier back there... :D No offense intended - just my two cents and the perspective of the GNM Nürnberg on the current CRM development... Best, Mark Am Di., 8. Nov. 2022 um 21:51 Uhr schrieb Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig : Thank you for the clarification, Martin! I have proposed the justifications for deleting three further classes that do not, I believe, fulfil the criteria of being classes in CRM Base. And indeed, let us judge these objectively and by the given criteria, rather than subjective and personal preferences. If we come across a class that we simply cannot delete without irreparable damage to the ontology, at *that point* let us reconsider the criteria as being incomplete. Thanks again, Rob On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote: Dear All, I just want to remind that we have a principle explicitly in the introduction of the CRM not to add classes without distinct properties of their own which is sufficiently relevant. By this, we purged a lot of very useful classes from the CRM, because it is "base". I prefer not to hear again "if we don't like a class". I kindly ask members to delete such terms from our vocabulary. Any argument in favour of a class in CRMbase which is nothing more semantics than multiple IsA, must be measured by this principle, and not by likes. If the principle is to be abandoned again, please make an issue. If the principle is unclear, please make an issue. Any issue for adding more custom classes to RDFS, to be discussed. Best, Martin On 11/8/2022 5:46 PM, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote: Dear George and Robert, Your comments are well taken and understood. I do not take a position against or for the addition of this class (I'm not yet sure of either decision), nor I support that "rules" must be always respected. I just tried to find a good reason for not having already introduced such a class (and thus facilitate the discussion). Best, Pavos On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 5:00 PM Robert Sanderson wrote: I agree with George that this should be added. There are plenty of cases of classes without additional properties that serve only to join two parent classes. For example E22_Human-Made_Object, E
[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE regarding CRM SCI
TITLE: UPDATE SYNCHRONIZATION BETWEEN CRM BASE AND CRM SCI Dear all The last decision on updating the range of P112 diminished (issue 574) requires to also update the O1 diminished property in SCI, in which the P112 is declared with the previous state. BRs Athina Kritsotaki ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] CALL FOR E-VOTE ISSUE 581
ocial sciences, historical sciences, etc., whose objects are precisely related the social facts and immaterial cultural heritage. I am therefore not at all criticizing the modelling choices of the Sealit project, which are entirely legitimate in the context of the project's model. I would simply caution against implicitly accepting foundational and philosophical modelling principles, such as those we are called to vote on —e.g. the reference to "empirical material evidence" in the context of an ontology (the CRM) that "only commits to a unique material reality independent from the observer"— regarding issues that appear to be merely about innocuous wording, and by far are not, and should actually be once explicitly formulated, discussed and accepted. It is in this sense that I understand this question, as well as the one raised in issue 581, to fall under issues 504 and 580. Hoping to have answered your question in this way, with my best regards Francesco Dr. habil. Francesco Beretta Chargé de recherche au CNRS, Chargé d'enseignement à l'Université de Neuchâtel Axe de recherche en histoire numérique, Laboratoire de recherche historique Rhône-Alpes LARHRA UMR CNRS 5190, MSH LSE, 14, Avenue Berthelot 69363 LYON CEDEX 07 Publications [1] Le projet dataforhistory.org [2] – Ontology Management Environment OntoME [3] Projet "FAIR data" en histoire [4] L’ Axe de recherche en histoire numérique [5] du LARHRA Le projet symogih.org [6]– SPARQL endpoint [7] Portail de ressources géo-historiques GEO-LARHRA [8] Portail de ressources textuelles [9] au format XML Cours Outils numériques pour les sciences historiques [10] Dépôt GitHub avec documentation des cours et travaux d’étudiant-e-s [11] Le 28.02.22 à 11:25, athinak a écrit : Dear Francesco, dear all, There may be a misunderstanding regarding the class Legal Object Relationship, which I explained in the presentation in the last sig meeting: We defined this class in a sense of a state of ownership of a ship, which is a kind of information that can be inferred (implicit knowledge) and not directly observed – it can be observed by the starting and terminating event of this state. It is like the soc Bond, which describes social/legal relationships that cannot be observed. We strictly follow the modelling principle which refers that we model from actual information sources that reveal actual practice- according to the historians of the sealit project, a ship ownership phase is described as a state with the only information documented to be about the ship owner, the shares that may have and the name of the ship, not the dates of this ownership (which is a quite complex phenomenon to observe since a person e.g may possess up to 1/48 of a ship, so you can understand how many ships shares a single person could have in the same time and there is no documented information on the timespan of this shareholding. Additionally, the ownership is used to assign a name to a ship and a ship changes its name under an ownership state. However, additional temporal information on these names under ownership states is not documented in the source – the Ownership phase can be traced by the ship registration activity (that includes timespan information) that initiates it and by the de-flagging, both events that are documented. This is material evidence, coming from the source. If you open a Loyd catalogue, you will find these information under ship registration without dates on the owners of the ship. Another modeling principle that is represented in our decision to leave Legal Object Relationship as a subclass of E1 CRM Entity is that we support the progressive improvement of classification knowledge by IsA hierarchy. Since we don’t have enough knowledge and we support the open world assumption, which means that new evidence may change the classification, we prefer to model the more general (here we classified under E1) and then, when we have more precise knowledge by instances on the nature of this Legal Ob.Relationship class, then we can progressively specialize and refine the E1 and find the superclass under which Legal Object Relationship fits. Sealit is a model that is based on data input, it can be refined and improved based on new knowledge, new instances. I just wanted to explain this logic under which the model was constructed and to prove that it is one of the most representative documentations from material evidence we had, in our experience. So I am a bit confused how this use case supports raising philosophical questions regarding issue 581. My BRs, Athina On 2022-02-25 12:29, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote: Dear Martin, dear Franco, I assume that the same question by Franco (Issue 581) is raised by page 25 ? " What goes on in our minds or is produced by our minds is also regarded as part of the material reality, as it becomes materially evident to other people at least by our utterances, behav
Re: [Crm-sig] CALL FOR E-VOTE ISSUE 581
Dear Francesco, dear all, There may be a misunderstanding regarding the class Legal Object Relationship, which I explained in the presentation in the last sig meeting: We defined this class in a sense of a state of ownership of a ship, which is a kind of information that can be inferred (implicit knowledge) and not directly observed – it can be observed by the starting and terminating event of this state. It is like the soc Bond, which describes social/legal relationships that cannot be observed. We strictly follow the modelling principle which refers that we model from actual information sources that reveal actual practice- according to the historians of the sealit project, a ship ownership phase is described as a state with the only information documented to be about the ship owner, the shares that may have and the name of the ship, not the dates of this ownership (which is a quite complex phenomenon to observe since a person e.g may possess up to 1/48 of a ship, so you can understand how many ships shares a single person could have in the same time and there is no documented information on the timespan of this shareholding. Additionally, the ownership is used to assign a name to a ship and a ship changes its name under an ownership state. However, additional temporal information on these names under ownership states is not documented in the source – the Ownership phase can be traced by the ship registration activity (that includes timespan information) that initiates it and by the de-flagging, both events that are documented. This is material evidence, coming from the source. If you open a Loyd catalogue, you will find these information under ship registration without dates on the owners of the ship. Another modeling principle that is represented in our decision to leave Legal Object Relationship as a subclass of E1 CRM Entity is that we support the progressive improvement of classification knowledge by IsA hierarchy. Since we don’t have enough knowledge and we support the open world assumption, which means that new evidence may change the classification, we prefer to model the more general (here we classified under E1) and then, when we have more precise knowledge by instances on the nature of this Legal Ob.Relationship class, then we can progressively specialize and refine the E1 and find the superclass under which Legal Object Relationship fits. Sealit is a model that is based on data input, it can be refined and improved based on new knowledge, new instances. I just wanted to explain this logic under which the model was constructed and to prove that it is one of the most representative documentations from material evidence we had, in our experience. So I am a bit confused how this use case supports raising philosophical questions regarding issue 581. My BRs, Athina On 2022-02-25 12:29, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote: Dear Martin, dear Franco, I assume that the same question by Franco (Issue 581) is raised by page 25 ? " What goes on in our minds or is produced by our minds is also regarded as part of the material reality, as it becomes materially evident to other people at least by our utterances, behavior and products. " " priority of integrating information based on material evidence available for whatever human experience." " The CIDOC CRM only commits to a unique material reality independent from the observer." Cf. the new proposition below: " As “available documented and empirical material evidence” are regarded all types of material collected and displayed by museums and related institutions, as defined by ICOM[1], and other collections of things providing evidence about the past, in-situ objects, sites, monuments and intangible heritage relating to fields such as social history, ethnography, archaeology, fine and applied arts, natural history, history of sciences and technology. " It seems to me that these 'fussy' questions raise in fact, once again, the relevant Issue 504 concerning the philosophical underpinnings of CRM. The consequences of this approach are illustrated by the recently published Sealit project ontology, class: Legal Object Relationship (e.g. property of a ship by some actor): "This class comprises legal object relationships of which the timespan and the state (of these relationships) cannot be observed or documented. We can only observe these relationships through the events that initialize or terminate this state of relationship (starting event and terminating event). " I'm not sure how many domain experts would agree with this definition because ownership of things, as a fact, is attested in written texts, or even in minds of living persons and expressed in utterances, and these are empirically observable. The here adopted foundational stance excludes this fact (i.e. property) from being a subclass of E2 Temporal Entity. Legal Object Relationship is declared as subclass of E1 Entity. But on page 33 of the CRM
Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?
Hi George, as far as I know, there is no other property from current CRM properties that have E55 Type as range and fits for your case, apart from P21. Another solution would be to use P134 continued for expressing a coherence of outcomes between activities, but again this property does not have E55 as range (you will not avoid a full path), so it doesn't help a lot. Best, Athina Στις 2021-12-14 21:42, George Bruseker via Crm-sig έγραψε: Hi Thanasi, Yes that's true. Good reminder. That might be a solution but then we would need the particular property for expressing that two events are causally connected. I avoided to put it in the last email so as not to stir up to many semantic teapots. But obviously to have the general property we should have the particular property. So we have for example we have the particular properties: https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1 and https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1 so the analogy to this in my situation is probably O13 triggers (is triggered by) https://cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.4.pdf and we need the analogy of p21 to make the model complete On another note out of curiosity, in the extension where every property has a 'type of' property what happens with the extant 'type of' properties? I assume there isn't any has general purpose of type property... or is there? Cheers G On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 9:20 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote: Hi George, all, As part of Linked Conservation Data (and with the help of Carlo, Martin and Steve) we proposed the idea of Typed Properties which derive from current CRM properties and always have E55 Type as range. E.g. "bears feature" → "bears feature of type" so that one can describe the type of something without specifying the individual. It is very economical in conservation where we want to avoid describing hundreds of individuals of similar types. We are still baking the exact impact of such a reduction from individuals to Types. One issue in RDFS is the multitude of new properties. There seems to be a simple implementation in OWL with property paths. Not an immediate solution but a flag for more to come. All the best, Thanasis On 14/12/2021 15:49, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: Hi all, I have situations in which I have events where the data curators describe events for which they have generic knowledge of the outcome: sold, completed, incomplete, this sort of thing. So there is knowledge but it is not knowledge of the particular next event but of a general kind of outcome. We have properties like: P21 had general purpose (was purpose of) which is very useful for when the data curator only has generic knowledge knowledge and not particular knowledge regarding purpose. This seems a parallel to this case. Anybody else have this case and have an interest in a property like 'had general outcome' or 'had outcome of type' that goes from Event to a Type? Or, better yet if possible, a solution that doesn't involve a new property but that does meet this semantic need without too many contortions? Best, George ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] Fwd: Re: sealit ontology
Dear all, Philip Actually this work was meant for Pavlov, so by mistake it was sent to the list. It is an ongoing project, not published yet, but I am really happy that some of you find it really interesting - we can discuss this and we can always exchange opinions of course Best Athina December 13, 2021 6:20 PM, "Carlisle, Philip" wrote: > Hi Athina, > This is REALLY interesting and very timely for a project we are undertaking > here in the UK. > > We (Historic England) are currently beginning development of a National > Marine Historic Environment > Record using the Getty funded Arches platform which, as you may know, uses > the CRM and its > extensions as its core ontology. > > We currently have legacy data which perfectly matches the SeaLiT extension. > Namely wreck sites of > vessels which were trading in the waters around England and the UK from > Prehistory to the Present. > The legacy data was held in a bespoke Oracle database and the ETL process > will take the legacy data > and model it as a Vessel (Ship) with an associated Wreck site (where known) > I'd be interested to > discuss our approach and to feedback on the SeaLiT ontology if you think that > would be helpful. > > Regards > > Phil > > Phil Carlisle > Data Standards Specialist > Information Analysis > Policy and Evidence Group > Historic England > Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 > Mobile: +44 (0)7768 656427 > > Many Historic England staff are working remotely at the moment and we are > doing what we can to > maintain our level of response but please bear with us as this may be slower > than usual. > > http://www.heritagedata.org/blog > > Work with us to champion heritage and improve lives. Read our Future Strategy > and get involved at > historicengland.org.uk/strategy. > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal > views which are not the > views of Historic England unless specifically stated. If you have received it > in error, please > delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, > copy or disclose the > information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to > Historic England may > become publicly available. Please read our full privacy policy > (https://www.historicengland.org.uk/terms/privacy-cookies) for more > information. > > -Original Message- > From: Crm-sig On Behalf Of athinak via Crm-sig > Sent: 07 December 2021 12:51 > To: Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig > Subject: [Crm-sig] sealit ontology > > THIS IS AN EXTERNAL EMAIL: do not click any links or open any attachments > unless you trust the > sender and were expecting the content to be sent to you > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] Check this
Check this https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31 (https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31) I think it is an old issue related with the range best Athina ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] enhmerwsh
καλημερα Παύλο, ηθελα να ενημερωσω οτι ειμαι σε αδεια Τρίτη Τεταρτη και τις υπολοιπεσ μερες θα δουλευω απο το σπιτι - την οντολογια ακομη τη δουλευω γιατι δεν εχω τελέιωσει με τα παραδειγματα, μολις τελειωσω θα στη στειλω χαιρετισματα Αθηνα ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] CRMSci O19 Property Labels Minor Correction?
It is true it is linked to the Encounter Event, so, native speaker can find a better phrase for this Brs Athina October 22, 2021 3:21 PM, "melanie.roche--- via Crm-sig" mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr?to=%22melanie.roche---%20via%20Crm-sig%22%20)> wrote: Dear George, I share your concerns. Being unfamiliar with CRMsci in general and O19 in particular, when I first read your mesage I immediately assumed that the inverse property pointed to a place. As a non-native English speaker, I agree that there is a very strong locative flavour to the preposition "at", and it would be totally counter-intuitive to associate it with an event. I also feel the same applies (though less strongly) to "in". If we want to exclude any kind of locative flavour, would the preposition "during" be appropriate, or would it only work for some events but not all? Best, Mélanie. De : "George Bruseker via Crm-sig" mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr)> A : "crm-sig" mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr)> Date : 22/10/2021 13:43 Objet : [Crm-sig] CRMSci O19 Property Labels Minor Correction? Envoyé par : "Crm-sig" mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr)> Dear all, I am manually correcting some ontology files (horror) and changing the nomenclature from the previous names for O19 which were: has found object (was object found by) up until version 1.2.6 of the document. Then it changed, rightly (mostly), to: encountered object was object encountered at which is how it has been ever since. So, what's my problem? The inverse property label sounds like we named it poorly? Particularly the preposition 'at' has a locative flavour that to me would indicate that the object pointed at would be a place. The object pointed at, however, is of course the encounter event. I do not remember if we made the choice above on purpose or if this is just a mistake, but reading it now it strikes me as not the best choice. I think typically we would use 'by' (which is also problematic since sounds like it should point to an actor) or maybe 'in' which again sounds slightly locative, although might work better with an event. Anyhow, does anyone else see this as a problem or is it just me? Best, George___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr (mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr) http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig (http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig) Découvrez toute la programmation culturelle de la rentrée à la BnF (https://www.bnf.fr/fr/agenda) Pass BnF lecture/culture (https://www.bnf.fr/fr/pass-bnf-lecture-culture) : bibliothèques, expositions, conférences, concerts en illimité pour 15 € / an – Acheter en ligne (https://inscriptionbilletterie.bnf.fr/) 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
Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors
Hello, I am probably missing something here, but regarding these databases, in which cases these animals are documented as actors? It seems that there are documentations about births and traps and capturing events, but the discussion is about activities carried out by them, right? From my experience with gbif and darwincore, which a standard that is widely used for biodiversity databases, haven't seen definitions of this kind of relationships, but maybe I am missing things or I misunderstood something BRs Athina Στις 2021-10-12 10:02, George Bruseker via Crm-sig έγραψε: Hi all, Here are some examples of databases that deal with individual or collectivites of animals NOT as THINGS but as AGENTS: EMU: Pest Tracking in Museums http://help.emu.axiell.com/v6.4/en/Topics/EMu/Traps%20and%20Pest%20Events%20modules.htm Here's a database that tracks the migratory paths of individual birds: https://nationalzoo.si.edu/migratory-birds/migratory-birds-tracking-map Here's a database that tracks orcas: https://theorcaproject.wordpress.com/killer-whale-orca-database/ Here's a database that tracks gorillas: https://www.gorillasland.com/la-plaine-zoo.php I would say that often something doesn't get documented because it is silenced by the information systems available (see the terrible gorilla database), arguably what CIDOC CRM is supposed to aid in getting out of (viz. Dominic's textual works issue and documenting context). The fact that people are forced to shoehorn identifiable individuals that they want to document and have discourse about into classes that do not suit them is for me the obvious argument for making classes and properties! Whether there are explicit fields for such data, the natural world is something which unsurprisingly Cultural Heritage is interested in and refers to. Orcas are, for example, highly important animals within different cultural systems in Canada, they are documented and they are documented not as things but as agents. So what is the pressing counter point to allowing this expressivity? That there are too many classes and properties. Many would make that argument about CRMinf or about any of our extensions. I suppose it depends on where you interest lies. By not opening these categories we effectively mute/suppress this voice. Because the limits of the world are my language when we choose to oppress a class we choose to oppress the ability to express that object. Or we indeed force the documentation of things that are considered agents as objects. This seems the greater harm to my mind. On the expertise question, I am not sure if we required a biologist to be able to model the notion of Birth or Death. Did we not use a middle level understanding of everyday objects and their documentation in systems in order to be support the recording of standard kinds of facts of interest to a researcher? Birth and Death are not high concepts of when conception begins or when the soul leaves the body, they are rough and ready everyday ideas of, there was a person and an event led to its end, there was a person and an event led to its death. How the case of modelling animals differs is not clear to me. Did we bring in financial experts model the payment class? On which issues we need an expert and on which issues not is not clear, nor is that expertise counts. As Rob says, having many years of experience in cultural heritage documentation and analysis of such systems does not count? I would think in basic matters like this, it goes back to the ground of coming to a common sense modelling in line with what is considered the best state of knowledge regarding the world. We KNOW that the best state of knowledge is not represented by the present modelling because agency is not just attributed to human beings. Therefore, we are presently deliberately out of synch with the best state of knowledge. I would think it behooves (pun intended) us to step up to the plate and get on to making it possible to express basic facts about the world that can be and are referenced in CH data systems (such as the existence of animals!). Best, George On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 1:19 AM Pat Riva wrote: Hi Rob, Looking at the dates on Lassie and Misha, I see that they were created during the phase when people were trying this under an unwise modification to RDA, and not been revised since. This would no longer be valid under the latest RDA. And no one has bothered to propose MARC coding specific to this type of heading, leading to the ones that were created being shoe-horned into the personal name coding. The proportion of the huge LC names file is too small. As for the fictitious, that was a completely different argument that has also lasted years. Stems from a difficulty in distinguishing between a name and the reality behind it. But these two issues are frequently conflated in the library world by people trying to use discussion related to why one was invalid to imply the position on the other issue
Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling 'Transcription' Advice?
Dear George the simplest solution I have used for very basic cases, such as, I want to assign the transcribed content (without identifying A) to B was: B (E73 Information Object or E33): P3 has note.P3.1 has type:"transcription" and the string is the content note. This is the content. However this doesn't work if you need to have A as an instance with identity (you use other paths in that case, as you mentioned) BRs Athina Στις 2021-07-20 12:38, George Bruseker via Crm-sig έγραψε: Dear all, Just a general question to the crowd. Sometimes one has transcribed data of a very simple form. A is supposed to represent B and it has been copied by someone with the intention of so doing. A is a transcription of B A [E33] is a transcription of B [E33] This could be modelled numerous ways using CIDOC CRM. If one is looking for the most direct/binary way, I suppose that the only choice is "p130 shows features of". If you wanted to capture the mode of relation then you would use p130.1 has type and indicate 'transcription'. I notice, however, that we do have 'has translation' as a sub property of P130 shows features of, as an apparently useful to the community binary property specializing P130 to that specific scenario. Has anyone else done modelling of transcriptions before with the aim of not recording the event but only the binary relation and if so, did you come up with any interesting solutions? A property would be handy in case anyone has created and published a specialization that could just be reused? Thanks for any insight! Maybe I miss an obvious trick from LRM? All the best, George ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Measurements and Dimensions
As I remember, this problem was discussed in issues 229 and 307, which are declared closed. However, I am wondering, if it is related to the issue 293? Athina Στις 2020-09-09 17:26, Athanasios Velios έγραψε: Good point, but it seems to me that being able to measure a Place is pretty important. Otherwise we have to measure through the physical object/site reference or the declarative space as part of a conceptual thing. Thanasis On 09/09/2020 13:39, Robert Sanderson wrote: Dear all, I believe that there is an inconsistency in the model for measurements and dimensions. E54 Dimensions are associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension. So not every class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70. However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be measured. I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to resolve this inconsistency. I would also be okay with the other direction by changing the domain of P43 has dimension to be E1 CRM Entity, however that seems like a much more significant change, and would result in quite strange side effects such as Dimensions having Dimensions. Rob -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] Fwd: RE: NEW ISSUE: Scope Note of CRMinf -> Belief Adoption
Αρχικό μήνυμα Θέμα: RE: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Scope Note of CRMinf -> Belief Adoption Ημερομηνία: 2020-07-10 12:32 Αποστολέας: "Stephen Stead" Παραλήπτης: Κοινοποίηση: "'Martin Doerr'" , "'athinak'" Απάντηση στο: I hope this will go to the list. Athina if you only get one copy of this can you post again please. I will prepare updates to the Scope Note and Examples based on this feedback ready for the next meeting. Thanks Thomas, all SdS Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail ste...@paveprime.com LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ [5] FROM: Crm-sig ON BEHALF OF Martin Doerr SENT: 08 July 2020 12:30 TO: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr SUBJECT: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Scope Note of CRMinf -> Belief Adoption Dear All, The Scope Note of I7 will be corrected. Best, Martin On 7/8/2020 12:46 PM, BOTTINI Thomas wrote: Dear all, Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier, It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that every I2 Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was not able to deduce from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the acceptance of somebody else's conclusion about some state of affairs". Stephen's wording is extremely clear. And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1. This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2 Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and graphical resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our further work. Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf 🙏🏼 —— Thomas Bottini Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223 DE : Crm-sig au nom de Olivier Marlet DATE : mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19 À : "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" OBJET : Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption Dear Thomas, For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations, we used the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation according to Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the CRMinf is directly inspired by this theory. In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based on observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is known and acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for example); 3/ arguments built from previous conclusions. 1/ For a proposition based on OBSERVATION DATA or COMPARISON DATA, mapping could be: S15_Observable_Entity → _O11_was_described_by_ → S6_Data_evaluation (_IsA_ I5_Inference_Making _IsA_ I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → I4_Proposition_Set I5_Inference_Making → _J3_applies_ → I3_Inference_Logic 2/ For a proposition based on REFERENCE DATA, mapping could be: E31_Document (_IsA_ E73_Information_Object) →_ __J7_is_evidence_for_ → I7_Belief_Adoption (_IsA_ I1_Argumentation) → _J6_adopted_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → I4_Proposition_Set 3/ For intermediate or final propositions, mapping could be: I4_Proposition_Set → _J4_is_subject_of_ → I2_Belief → _J1_was_premise_for_ → S8_Categorical_hypothesis_building (_IsA_ I5_Inference_Making _IsA_ I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → I4_Proposition_Set I invite you to read our online article : https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49 [1] and to consult the resulting online publication in TEI format: https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/ [2] Here is the schema that helps me to better understand the organization of the CRMinf. Hope it will be useful. Best, Olivier olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr Ingénieur CNRS Laboratoire Archéologie et Territoires - Tours UMR 7324 - CITERES - MSH Val de Loire BP 60449 37204 TOURS cedex 03 02 47 36 15 06 http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat [3] http://masa.hypotheses.org [4] - DE: "Martin Doerr" À: "crm-sig" ENVOYÉ: Lundi 6 Juillet 2020 20:35:08 OBJET: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption On 7/6/2020 7:37 PM, George Bruseker wrote: Dear Thomas, As I would read it, S4 Observation is a subclass of I1 Argumentation, therefore inheriting all of its properties. This being the case, an observation can lead an actor involved in it to come to conclude in a belief (J2). Therefore if the situation is that the scientist goes and analyzes the object (instance of S4) looking at certain properties, and then comes to some sort of belief, then this belief can be documented using J2 concluded that I2 Belief and then continue from there. Belief adoption, to my understanding, should be used when the belief that one is taking up is not founded in one's own observational acts, but is rather simply taken over from some external authority. Therefore, you would not need two events, the observing, and the belief adopting. Rather you would need one event, the observation, which directly leads to a belief state. Without any fur
Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption
Dear all, I am wondering about the example of I7 Belief Adoption "My adoption of the belief that Dragendorff type 29 bowls are from the 1st Century AD". Maybe, it should be rephrased in order to express more precisely the trust in the source (which is someone else's) and in this sentence and it is actually implied. just a thought, Athina Στις 2020-07-08 12:46, BOTTINI Thomas έγραψε: Dear all, Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier, It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that every I2 Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was not able to deduce from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the acceptance of somebody else's conclusion about some state of affairs". Stephen's wording is extremely clear. And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1. This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2 Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and graphical resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our further work. Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf 🙏🏼 —— Thomas Bottini Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223 DE : Crm-sig au nom de Olivier Marlet DATE : mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19 À : "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" OBJET : Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption Dear Thomas, For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations, we used the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation according to Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the CRMinf is directly inspired by this theory. In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based on observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is known and acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for example); 3/ arguments built from previous conclusions. 1/ For a proposition based on OBSERVATION DATA or COMPARISON DATA, mapping could be: S15_Observable_Entity → _O11_was_described_by_ → S6_Data_evaluation (_IsA_ I5_Inference_Making _IsA_ I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → I4_Proposition_Set I5_Inference_Making → _J3_applies_ → I3_Inference_Logic 2/ For a proposition based on REFERENCE DATA, mapping could be: E31_Document (_IsA_ E73_Information_Object) →_ __J7_is_evidence_for_ → I7_Belief_Adoption (_IsA_ I1_Argumentation) → _J6_adopted_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → I4_Proposition_Set 3/ For intermediate or final propositions, mapping could be: I4_Proposition_Set → _J4_is_subject_of_ → I2_Belief → _J1_was_premise_for_ → S8_Categorical_hypothesis_building (_IsA_ I5_Inference_Making _IsA_ I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → I4_Proposition_Set I invite you to read our online article : https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49 [1] and to consult the resulting online publication in TEI format: https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/ [2] Here is the schema that helps me to better understand the organization of the CRMinf. Hope it will be useful. Best, Olivier olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr Ingénieur CNRS Laboratoire Archéologie et Territoires - Tours UMR 7324 - CITERES - MSH Val de Loire BP 60449 37204 TOURS cedex 03 02 47 36 15 06 http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat [3] http://masa.hypotheses.org [4] - DE: "Martin Doerr" À: "crm-sig" ENVOYÉ: Lundi 6 Juillet 2020 20:35:08 OBJET: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption On 7/6/2020 7:37 PM, George Bruseker wrote: Dear Thomas, As I would read it, S4 Observation is a subclass of I1 Argumentation, therefore inheriting all of its properties. This being the case, an observation can lead an actor involved in it to come to conclude in a belief (J2). Therefore if the situation is that the scientist goes and analyzes the object (instance of S4) looking at certain properties, and then comes to some sort of belief, then this belief can be documented using J2 concluded that I2 Belief and then continue from there. Belief adoption, to my understanding, should be used when the belief that one is taking up is not founded in one's own observational acts, but is rather simply taken over from some external authority. Therefore, you would not need two events, the observing, and the belief adopting. Rather you would need one event, the observation, which directly leads to a belief state. Without any further context, that is how I imagine it should be modelled. CRMinfers, do I have it right? Absolutely! "Belief Adaption" means "adopt another one's belief. Whatever is found on a physical thing is an observation by human senses or other instruments receiving signals, including from chemical reactions, x-ray reflection and transmission, tactile etc. There may be non-trivial INFERENCEs subsequent to primary observation. For instance, abrasions at amphora handles regarded to stem FROM ROPES that tied cargo in a ship. Some instruments contain firmware that cannot be separated from the primary signal. We regard then
Re: [Crm-sig] Help wanted - Modelling an observation activity
Hello, I agree with Thanasis and additionally, if you want to measure the location in GPS terms as as sampling place of this encounter event , maybe Sxxx Position Measurement is useful, if this is also the case - but I think this is an open issue in CRM sig. Is this example a useful one for this issue (388)? BRs, Athina Στις 2019-10-16 18:12, Athanasios Velios έγραψε: Hello Pierre, Isn't "S19 Encounter Event" from CRMsci what you are talking about? And then use the properties "O19 has found object" and "O21 has found at". O21 can be used for the location of the whale and P7 for the location of the lighthouse, no? All the best, Thanasis On 16/10/2019 12:47, Pierre Choffé wrote: Dear all, I am presently working on a project for the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris and we are using CRM. We need to model an observation activity which consists in observing from a certain place some taxon which may be at a distant place. For example, observing from a lighthouse a beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) passing at a few miles distance. My first guess was to consider this activity as a kind of measurement and therefore I used E13 Attribute Assignment as a parent class for ObservationActivity. The observation activity P7 took place at the lighthouse and "observed" a location (gps coordinates where the whale was seen). Do you think this makes sense? Do you see any other way to model this ? Thank you very much for your help, All the best to all, Pierre ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] E21 Person, E67 Birth
Dear Franco, your comments are very useful and I think you are right, maybe this is about a more general concept or we may miss something with the definition of E67 Birth(?). And what about the parents? they are participants in this biological event? Especially the mother who acts, performs intentionally, especially in cases of stillborn, the procedure is to start labour. I am concerned with the definition of the birth event. Thank you for the feedback Athina Στις 2019-09-23 11:45, Franco Niccolucci έγραψε: My suggestion would be to avoid being involved in ethical and religious discussions (when does the ‘person’ start to be such?) and go one step up in the entity hierarchy so: * instead of E21 Person use E20 Biological Object (superclass of E21) qualified with P2 has type * instead of E67 Birth use E5 Event qualified with P2 has type. In my opinion using instead E63 Beginning of existence (superclass of E67) is risky because applying the identity criteria to a fetus is uncertain and subject to ethical discussion, so the only safe solution is to record when it manifests to the world with a birth or miscarriage. Best Franco Il giorno lun 23 set 2019 alle 10:21 athinak ha scritto: Dear all, I am working on a project relating to historical information (sources) on Seafaring lives and Maritime Labour in 19th-20th century - we map the raw data to CIDOC CRM (or an extension of it). Historians collect data from various records, such as Civil Registers, which are records documenting persons born or dead - basically, they register the deaths. So I have this case: they register as persons the miscarriages or the stillborn or the abortions, and they assign attributes such as the number of registration, personal information (name,surname,etc. )of the parents, the place of residence (which is the parents address, of course) and the sex of the aborted or still born (something they knew afterwards). I suppose this is a difficult ethical and biological subject- my question is how would you model the miscarriage or the still born or the abortion? It is not exactly defined as E21 Person and if it is a case of still born, it can be a kind of a E67 Birth Event, but if it is a miscarriage, I believe it is not a birth event, it is a different biological process, so what is it? Any thoughts that would help? thanks, Athina Kritsotaki ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] E21 Person, E67 Birth
Dear all, I am working on a project relating to historical information (sources) on Seafaring lives and Maritime Labour in 19th-20th century - we map the raw data to CIDOC CRM (or an extension of it). Historians collect data from various records, such as Civil Registers, which are records documenting persons born or dead - basically, they register the deaths. So I have this case: they register as persons the miscarriages or the stillborn or the abortions, and they assign attributes such as the number of registration, personal information (name,surname,etc. )of the parents, the place of residence (which is the parents address, of course) and the sex of the aborted or still born (something they knew afterwards). I suppose this is a difficult ethical and biological subject- my question is how would you model the miscarriage or the still born or the abortion? It is not exactly defined as E21 Person and if it is a case of still born, it can be a kind of a E67 Birth Event, but if it is a miscarriage, I believe it is not a birth event, it is a different biological process, so what is it? Any thoughts that would help? thanks, Athina Kritsotaki
Re: [Crm-sig] EMAIL SUSPEITO: P72 has Language
Dear all, I agree with Christian-Emil, especially for the P2 has type property, as a simple solution for the cases that we don't have enough information to infer this capability or cases lacking temporal information - it reminds me of the issue 277 and the example of the artist Best, Athina Kritsotaki Στις 2019-08-25 10:05, Christian-Emil Smith Ore έγραψε: Dear all, Dear all, It is correct as Franco writes, that a group can be used to model the speakers of a language. The class E74 Group is a very strong mechanism and can be used to model almost any relationship between actors, that is, the members of the group has the relationship indicated by the type of the group. The classes E85 Joining and E86 Leaving and the properties P143 joined (was joined by): E39 Actol P144 joined with (gained member by) E74 Group P145 separated (left by) E39 Actor P146 separated from (lost member by) E74 Group enable us to model the time aspect. At least in my opinion, the class E55 Tyoes and P2 has type can be used to model persons abilities like speaking a language in the cases where time is not a concern. On the other hand this timelessness give an impression that a type indicate a trait or some immanent characteristics of a person. It is a philosophical question whether language skills characterize a person in such a way. There is an ongoing issue 329 in CRM about states. In connection with this issue there is a table with an overview: “CRM Properties that may have shorter temporal validity than their domain and range” http://cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/table%20of%20issue%20329.docx Among these P2 has type is listed. It is still not decided how this time specific validity should be modelled in CRM. Best, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci Sent: 24 August 2019 19:45 To: Maria Jose de Almeida Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; "Runa, Lucília"; Barbedo, Francisco Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] EMAIL SUSPEITO: P72 has Language Dear Maria, all the problem comes from the fact that the CRM usually models what humans DO, not what they ARE. To model the latter, it is therefore necessary to introduce an event in which the person participates, as Thanasis suggested. What he proposes is correct, but considering a language instrumental to the activity of learning it sounds a bit awkward to my ear: common sense would consider so a handbook, an app, a teacher etc. Also, such activity may be problematic with native languages where an intentional action (= activity) is difficult to attribute to a few months old baby. From your description I believe that you are interested in documenting the factual knowledge of a language, not that/how it was learnt, so I suggest the following approach. In this specific case you might use membership in an E74 Group, similar to what is suggested in the scope note of E74 for ‘nationality'. Thus you would have very large groupings of speakers of different languages, and speaking one of them would correspond to being member of that specific group, e.g. Maria P107 is member of E74 Group 'Portuguese speakers’. Incidentally, this option would also enable you (if you wish) to distinguish among the levels of knowledge of that language via P107.1 kind of member E55 Type ’native speaker’. Thus, also the following would hold for you: Maria P107 is member of E74 Group ‘English speakers’, but with P107.1 kind of member E55 Type ’second language speaker’. Further flexibility can be introduced with this P107.1 if required, like “writer”, “translator”, etc. Best Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS Editor-in-Chief ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy Il giorno 23 ago 2019, alle ore 16:17, Maria Jose de Almeida ha scritto: Dear all, As some of you may know, I’m working in the Portuguese National Archives an we are building a new data infrastructure using CIDOC-CRM for archival description. When describing biographical information it’s common to state that some person was fluent in some language, or languages, apart from his/her native one. Using current archival descriptions standards [ISAD(G) 3.2.2; EAD ] this is represented within a text, usually a very long text string with information of distinct natures. So far we have been able to decompose the different elements and represent them adequately as instances of CIDOC-CRM classes and link them trough the suitable properties. But we are struggling with this one... We cannot link a Person (E21) to a language (E56) and neither use multiple instantiation, as it has been suggested in other cases (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-258-p72-quantification), because Person (E21) and Linguistic Object (E33) are disjoint. The only way around I can think of is to consider someone’s speech as a linguistic object and state that that perso
Re: [Crm-sig] [Sci] Are O9 and P171 identical?
I agree, it is a different property: 09 is used to specify the types of the observed properties (for which we have observed values). Additionally it is an important property because it implies that by having the observation set of properties 09, 016, .. (type, entity and values) described, it can represent a reification construct (set of propositions described) or point to namedGraph, see the attached BRs, Athina Kritsotaki Στις 2019-06-21 22:28, Christian-Emil Smith Ore έγραψε: P177 is different from O9 in the sense that one can assign anything, but O7 is about observations. So the intensions are different. Chr-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios Sent: 21 June 2019 19:52 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] [Sci] Are O9 and P171 identical? I think "O9 observed property type" could be defined as a sub-property of "P177 assigned property type". I do not think it should be removed, it may be useful for searching. Also, I have noticed that in version 6.2.6, under "P2 has type", the "P177 assigned property type" is not listed as a sub-property and it should. Thanasis On 21/06/2019 18:05, Robert Sanderson wrote: Apologies for the confusion! I mean P177 assigned property type, not P171! (I was working from memory, given that the numbers were reused … to cross the threads) Rob *From: *Robert Sanderson *Date: *Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:53 AM *To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" *Subject: *[Sci] Are O9 and P171 identical? Dear all, In working on a model for our conservation science folks, I observe [intended] that O9 and the new P171 both fill the same role – a subproperty of P2_has_type that goes from the activity to a property type, such that the explicit relationship between the observed entity and the measurement can be recorded. Does the introduction of P171 obviate the need for O9? Thanks! Rob ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based upon them and you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where this email is unrelated to the business of University of the Arts London or of any of its group companies the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the relevant group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the email is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also applies: UAL Short Courses Limited is a company registered in England and Wales under company number 02361261. Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272 High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig argumentationTheory1.ppt Description: MS-Powerpoint presentation
[Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRMsci issue
Dear all, Regarding the decision to move (deprecate) the class S16 State (see minutes from “The 42nd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 35th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting”) ,I believe that the range of the property O14 initializes should be updated. An alternative proposal could be to have E3 as a range, since the scope note is being under development under ISSUE 369 (Timed relations) or under ISSUE 329. Think about this Athina Kritsotaki
[Crm-sig] CRM sci useful material
Dear all, I found this reference http://joey711.github.io/phyloseq/ and this https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 about a tool named phyloseq. It is described as a set of classes, wrappers, and tools (in R) to make it easier to import, store, and analyze phylogenetic sequencing data; and to reproducibly share that data and analysis with others. This might help to understand better or find more cases about processes we describe in CRM sci. For instance, there is a specific description https://rdrr.io/bioc/phyloseq/man/merge_samples-methods.html about merging samples, so I am not sure if there is also a need for an extra link "merged" sample in CRM sci, such the one that Thanasis proposed (split) in the recent sig meeting. Probably we need more data from the biologists domain, in order to confirm that. So regard this as an information I wanted to share, relating to S2 Sample Taking BRs Athina Kritsotaki
Re: [Crm-sig] modeling texts
Dear Massoomeh, you can use the direct relationship "P130 shows features of" from the CRM which is a shortcut of more detailed derivation chains through creation events (and parts of) that you will decide if you want to model this analysis (and make a model) - otherwise you can use the FRBR: R2 is derivative of hope I helped, Athina Kritsotaki Στις 2018-10-14 12:24, Massoomeh Niknia έγραψε: Dear all, I would like to know how would you model two versions of very similar texts? I have two texts which are the minutes of two meetings. The texts approved by two groups of managers in the two different meetings. At the second meeting, the managers change some approved items (one or two) and make the new ones but the texts are similar to each other. I would like to know which kind of relationship can describe the connection between them better? they can not relate to each other as the 'narrower' or 'broader' items. Maybe the term "parallel texts" could define the relationship between the texts but I'm not sure and I would like to know how to model such a case with the CRM family models. Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Massoomeh ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRMsci issue
Deal all, In CRMsci, we need a reference to the measurements of the positions of things, in terms of place geometries that are measured and calculated by this kind of activities. So, a first idea is to extend the model to include a Measurement Position Activity that produces a geometric place definition in gml terms (which also may include the place of the possible sampling activities). So, a proposal for a new class: “Position Measurement” Subclass of: S21 Measurement/S3 Measurement by Sampling Scope note: This class comprises activities of measuring the positions of instances of E2 Temporal Entity or E77 Persistent Items, (properties of physical things, or phenomena, states and interactions or events), e.g during a sampling activity, that can be determined by a systematic procedure. During a Sampling Event that takes place, the scientist in order to collect samples and observe the occurrences (encounter events) in the specific area, keeps the information about the area of sampling by a number of measurements. By these area measurements, also encounter events volumes can be calculated. Furthermore, the volume of the sampling event can also be calculated. All these related processes can be modelled by a Position Measurement activity that produces a Geometric Place Definition, which includes the Phenomenal Place in which the Sampling Activity took place. Properties: produces: Geometric Place Definition?/or SP5 Geometric Place Expression: Q10 defines place: SP6 Declarative Place BRs Athina Kritsotaki
Re: [Crm-sig] An interesting case of rights to think about..
nership? And what is the (CRM) relationship of the guardian to the ward? In sum: the river guardians -> E39 Actors the river itself -> E? the guardians towards the river -> P? Best regards Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy Il giorno 25 mar 2017, alle ore 11:15, Øyvind Eide ha scritto: Dear Athina, I have not moved beyond the article (thanks for posting it, it is a very useful addition to other complex land right issues!) but by reading that it seems like the river has the right of a legal person, not an individual. Is that right? If so, the river can be seen as an organisation, in line with the (and connected to) a group of people (the Whanganui iwi). Or it can be seen as an organisation connected to the two guardians, who will speak on behalf of the legal person (the river). Can this be seen as similar to, for instance, a trust? Then a lawyer appointed to speak on behalf of the trust would be in line with the two guardians of the river. All the best, Øyvind On 20 Mar 2017, at 12:57, athinak wrote: Dear all, relating to the rights triangle P75,P104, P105 we proposed, here is an interesting case of right holding: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being [1]. The approach of the tribe is unique: the river is granted legal rights as human-being; can we apply this (rights possessed by river?) in the model? is there a possibility to find an equivalence between human's behavior and a behavior of a phenomenon and in what way? is there a generalization missing? think about this, BRs Athina Kritsotaki ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig [2] ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig [2] ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig [2] -- -- 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 [3] | -- Links: -- [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being [2] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig [3] http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] An interesting case of rights to think about..
Dear all, relating to the rights triangle P75,P104, P105 we proposed, here is an interesting case of right holding: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being. The approach of the tribe is unique: the river is granted legal rights as human-being; can we apply this (rights possessed by river?) in the model? is there a possibility to find an equivalence between human's behavior and a behavior of a phenomenon and in what way? is there a generalization missing? think about this, BRs Athina Kritsotaki
[Crm-sig] Proposed Change
Dear All, We propose a new entity named Right Holding (see the attached file), which is in fact the event/state which is implied from the triangle structure Actorossesses:Right:applies to: Legal Object: right held by:Actor. This new class has temporal properties (timespan of rights), something that was missing before. Think about this, Athina Kritsotaki
[Crm-sig] Proposed Change
Dear All, We propose a new entity named Right Holding (see the attached ppt), which is in fact the event/state which is implied from the triangle structure Actor:possesses:Right:applies to: Legal Object: right held by:Actor. This new class has temporal properties (timespan of rights), something that was missing before. Think about this, Athina Kritsotaki RightProposal.pptx Description: MS-Powerpoint 2007 presentation
[Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRM issue
Dear all, The scope note of E51 Contact Point should be changed in order to reflect the fact that a contact point is necessarily handled by a communication service; the post office, an email or the internet service itself. Regards, Athina Kritsotaki
[Crm-sig] New CIDOC CRM Issue
Dear all About the property: P105 right held by (has right on): since P105 is declared as a superproperty of P52 has current owner (is current owner of), then it should be more precise in expressing the current character/notion of the property by adding the standard expression “at the time of validity of the record or database containing the statement that uses this property” in the scope note, otherwise express a timeless character of this property (if we decide to express this, it should be reflected in the scope note). Think about this, which one is attribute of the intended meaning of rights, Regards, Athina Kritsotaki
