Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping / Cidoc-CRM Top Property
My apologies to Phil! I found it but it was not quite as interpreted. It comes from a document in 2012 and was a particular specialisation of a database association code and not intended as a general relationship property (there is no scope note etc). Just about all the specialisations that we did in our early naive days of using CRM were deleted and are now used simply as vocabularies to type particular entities. Hope this make sense. I suspect that the old wiki site should be removed from the Web. Cheers, D orcid.org/-0002-5539-3126 On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Merz, Dorian wrote: > Dear All, > > It would be pleasing to have a kind of P0_CRM_top_property or > PX_is_related_to as the "mother of all properties" in the CRM. This would > in no way interfere with the semantics of the other properties while > providing us with some ways to solve semingly trivial practical problems > like finding all CRM-Properties in an rdf or owl implementation or being > able to say that two objects/individuals/entities are in relation but we > don't know exactly how, etc. > Such property would resemble the owl-top-property but keep compatibility > with the CRM. Domain and Range should, of course, be E1 > I feel that this is not exactly the "is related to" property that was > discussed here earlier but probably it is still being worth discussion. > > kind regards, > Dorian > > > Dipl.-Inf. Dorian Merz > Univ. Erlangen-Nuernberg > Department Informatik > AG Digital Humanities > Konrad-Zuse-Str. 3-5 > 91052 ERLANGEN > > Raum 00.046 > Fon: +49 9131 85 29095 > Mail: dorian.merz AT fau.de > -- > *Von:* Crm-sig [crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr]" im Auftrag von "martin [ > mar...@ics.forth.gr] > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 22. September 2016 19:56 > *An:* Simon Spero > *Cc:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > *Betreff:* Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping > > On 22/9/2016 8:48 μμ, Simon Spero wrote: > > If the CRM is interpreted as an OWL ontology, then the most general > relationship between two objects is *owl:topObjectProperty. * > > This property has very weak semantics (e.g. that there is some known > relationship between a and b). > > One benefit / problem with using this property is that it is a super > property of all object properties, so you may need to be careful to turn > inference on / off. > > You can also define your own equivalent placeholder, which will make it > easier to use inference when you can start upgrading to more specific > relationships. > > Simon > > Sounds like a good solution! It is standard, and obviously less committed > than anything in the CRM... > > Martin > > > -- > > -- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638| >| Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | > | >Center for Cultural Informatics | >Information Systems Laboratory| > Institute of Computer Science| >Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | >N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -- > > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > >
[Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping / Cidoc-CRM Top Property
Dear All, It would be pleasing to have a kind of P0_CRM_top_property or PX_is_related_to as the "mother of all properties" in the CRM. This would in no way interfere with the semantics of the other properties while providing us with some ways to solve semingly trivial practical problems like finding all CRM-Properties in an rdf or owl implementation or being able to say that two objects/individuals/entities are in relation but we don't know exactly how, etc. Such property would resemble the owl-top-property but keep compatibility with the CRM. Domain and Range should, of course, be E1 I feel that this is not exactly the "is related to" property that was discussed here earlier but probably it is still being worth discussion. kind regards, Dorian Dipl.-Inf. Dorian Merz Univ. Erlangen-Nuernberg Department Informatik AG Digital Humanities Konrad-Zuse-Str. 3-5 91052 ERLANGEN Raum 00.046 Fon: +49 9131 85 29095 Mail: dorian.merz AT fau.de Von: Crm-sig [crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr]" im Auftrag von "martin [mar...@ics.forth.gr] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. September 2016 19:56 An: Simon Spero Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Betreff: Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping On 22/9/2016 8:48 μμ, Simon Spero wrote: If the CRM is interpreted as an OWL ontology, then the most general relationship between two objects is owl:topObjectProperty. This property has very weak semantics (e.g. that there is some known relationship between a and b). One benefit / problem with using this property is that it is a super property of all object properties, so you may need to be careful to turn inference on / off. You can also define your own equivalent placeholder, which will make it easier to use inference when you can start upgrading to more specific relationships. Simon Sounds like a good solution! It is standard, and obviously less committed than anything in the CRM... Martin -- -- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638| | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> | | Center for Cultural Informatics | Information Systems Laboratory| Institute of Computer Science| Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | | N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | | Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | --
Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping
Hi Philip! I very much like Stephen's suggestion of modelling generic relationships by reifying subsets of the museum's database records as a set of E73 Information Objects each of which *P67 refers to* a set of "generically related" objects. The nice thing about an "Information Object" is that the semantics it carries are not required to be expressed in terms of the CIDOC-CRM, so it doesn't matter that the exact semantics aren't known. This technique seems to me like it could be a useful very generally for representing information from legacy systems with under-specified semantics. I was confronted with the same issue when I was experimenting with building a CIDOC-CRM interpretation of the data exposed by Museum Victoria's Collections API. Actually, I wish I'd thought of Stephen's approach, now, rather than the approach I took, which wrote up on my blog: < http://conaltuohy.com/blog/bridging-conceptual-gap-api-cidoc-crm/> Of particular relevance to your question is the section about how to model these "generic relations" between collection items: < http://conaltuohy.com/blog/bridging-conceptual-gap-api-cidoc-crm/#relationships>. The problem is that MV's underlying database records did not document any detailed semantics for this relationship, and that a number of different types of relationships might have been represented using the same data structure. If you are aiming to model the relationship as something general enough to subsume all the instances of the relationship, the owl:topObjectProperty would certainly work for this purpose, but you might perhaps find something semantically stronger. Empirical investigation might allow you to use one of the CIDOC-CRM's properties (though it might show that the general relationships are actually too heterogeneous for that). In the case of my experiment, my reading of MV's data led me to believe that the actual relationships could legitimately be encoded as relationships of similarity, and represented with P130_shows_features_of (in the symmetrical, non-directed sense of that relationship), though this was controversial, as you can see by the comments on the post: < http://conaltuohy.com/blog/bridging-conceptual-gap-api-cidoc-crm/#comments> The other approach would be to try to guess at a more particular meaning for each of these "general relationships", using clues from other available data. You might find that the "general relationships" between photographs and other items was one of depiction, for instance, and be able to automate that inference in your mapping. But that's an empirical question, and potentially a lot of work. Regards Conal On 15 September 2016 at 20:16, Carlisle, Philip < philip.carli...@historicengland.org.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > > > The Arches project moves on a pace and is in the process of modifying the > graphs for version 4. > > > > In the original graphs we used a British Museum extension property > (PXX_is_related_to) as a work around to allow us to represent the general > association relationship we had in legacy datasets. eg. this telephone > kiosk has a general association with this telephone exchange. > > > > We now want to continue to be able to model a general association but the > only property available P69 has association with (is associated with) is > restricted in its domain and range to E29 Design or Procedure. > > > > How do we model the ‘If you’re interested in that you might be interested > in this’ nature of the general association between two physical man made > things? > > > > All thoughts appreciated. > > > > Phil > > > > *Phil Carlisle* > > Knowledge Organization Specialist > > Listing Group, Historic England > > Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 > > > > http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ > > http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ > > > > Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are > valued for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer > focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do. > > > > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > -- Conal Tuohy http://conaltuohy.com/ @conal_tuohy +61-466-324297
Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping
This is intriguing. I've never used the property, PX_is_related_to or PXX_is_related_to myself and it isn't in any of my documentation. I have checked my BM mapping manual (361 pages) and the only mention of "related to" is a BM production association code for which the semantics have been ascertained and mapped to core CRM properties. Additionally when you attempt to use it in a query on the BM Endpoint, it does not exist in any record instance. See http://collection.britishmuseum.org/sparql?sample=PREFIX+bmo%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fcollection.britishmuseum.org%2Fid%2Fontology%2F%3E%0D%0APREFIX+rso%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchspace.org%2Fontology%2F%3E%0D%0Aselect+*%0D%0A%7B%0D%0A%3Fa++bmo%3APX_is_related_to+%3Fb%0D%0A%7D for PX_is_related_to or http://collection.britishmuseum.org/sparql?sample=PREFIX+bmo%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fcollection.britishmuseum.org%2Fid%2Fontology%2F%3E%0D%0APREFIX+rso%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchspace.org%2Fontology%2F%3E%0D%0Aselect+*%0D%0A%7B%0D%0A%3Fa++bmo%3APXX_is_related_to+%3Fb%0D%0A%7D for PXX_is_related_to I've also had a look at the turtle ontology file containing our extensions and cant find it. It is possible I suppose that someone decided to add something like this (and if so mistakenly) at some point , but I have no recollection of it - or perhaps someone else created it based on the BM extension convention and I wonder if that is where the extra X came from. PX stands for Property Extension (used by BM) - I'm not sure what PXX is - it would certainly be interesting to know its origins. However, Martin is of course right, both in terms of theory and practice, regardless of where it originated from. D orcid.org/-0002-5539-3126 On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 6:56 PM, martin wrote: > On 22/9/2016 8:48 μμ, Simon Spero wrote: > > If the CRM is interpreted as an OWL ontology, then the most general > relationship between two objects is *owl:topObjectProperty. * > > This property has very weak semantics (e.g. that there is some known > relationship between a and b). > > One benefit / problem with using this property is that it is a super > property of all object properties, so you may need to be careful to turn > inference on / off. > > You can also define your own equivalent placeholder, which will make it > easier to use inference when you can start upgrading to more specific > relationships. > > Simon > > Sounds like a good solution! It is standard, and obviously less committed > than anything in the CRM... > > Martin > > > -- > > -- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638| >| Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | > | >Center for Cultural Informatics | >Information Systems Laboratory| > Institute of Computer Science| >Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | >N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -- > > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > >
Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping
On 22/9/2016 8:48 μμ, Simon Spero wrote: If the CRM is interpreted as an OWL ontology, then the most general relationship between two objects is *owl:topObjectProperty. * This property has very weak semantics (e.g. that there is some known relationship between a and b). One benefit / problem with using this property is that it is a super property of all object properties, so you may need to be careful to turn inference on / off. You can also define your own equivalent placeholder, which will make it easier to use inference when you can start upgrading to more specific relationships. Simon Sounds like a good solution! It is standard, and obviously less committed than anything in the CRM... Martin -- -- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638| | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | | Center for Cultural Informatics | Information Systems Laboratory| Institute of Computer Science| Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | | N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | | Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | --
Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping
If the CRM is interpreted as an OWL ontology, then the most general relationship between two objects is *owl:topObjectProperty. * This property has very weak semantics (e.g. that there is some known relationship between a and b). One benefit / problem with using this property is that it is a super property of all object properties, so you may need to be careful to turn inference on / off. You can also define your own equivalent placeholder, which will make it easier to use inference when you can start upgrading to more specific relationships. Simon
Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping
Dear Philip, I share the opinion of Steve. A general association of historical nature is utterly incompatible with the whole philosophy of the CRM. If a source refers some things as related in an unspecified way, we can only blame the source as information object for it. This could cover the "if you are interested...then...". We need some least semantics, otherwise any reasoning breaks down. This can be done by interpreting the respective vocabulary, if a relation type is provided. Minimal semantics are for instance parthood, presence, influence, similarity (parallels or causal), common type, etc. Users should be forced to be more specific. It is hard to imagine, that a user knows a relationship but nothing about it. I'd argue that such links are a result of underspecified documentation practice, and not of indeterminacy of scientific knowledge. Of course, you can add a non-CRM compatible extension ;-), if you have no better knowledge of the documented fact. Other opinions? Best, Martin On 15/9/2016 1:54 μμ, Stephen Stead wrote: I would probably model these in one of two ways depending on the nature of the general association. A] As parts of a larger physical man made thing; so in your example the telephone box and the exchange a part of a regional telecommunications system which in turn is part of a national telecommunications system. B] As both being present/participating in a period, event or activity; so this Napoleonic sea fort and this Napoleonic military canal are constructed as events that form part of the Napoleonic British Defence Period. I suppose as a last resort you could create an Information Object which refers to them all and name the Information Object as “A list of things which I am interested in for X reason”; your essay of why could then be attached via P3 has note. In this case what you are modelling is not the relationship between the things but your/your organisation’s believe that there is a relationship (however tenuous!) between them. HTH SdS Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail ste...@paveprime.com <mailto:ste...@paveprime.com> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads *From:*Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] *On Behalf Of *Carlisle, Philip *Sent:* 15 September 2016 11:16 *To:* crm-sig (Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr) *Subject:* [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping Hi all, The Arches project moves on a pace and is in the process of modifying the graphs for version 4. In the original graphs we used a British Museum extension property (PXX_is_related_to) as a work around to allow us to represent the general association relationship we had in legacy datasets. eg. this telephone kiosk has a general association with this telephone exchange. We now want to continue to be able to model a general association but the only property available P69 has association with (is associated with) is restricted in its domain and range to E29 Design or Procedure. How do we model the ‘If you’re interested in that you might be interested in this’ nature of the general association between two physical man made things? All thoughts appreciated. Phil *Phil Carlisle* Knowledge Organization Specialist Listing Group, Historic England Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are valued for their skillsand knowledge, and where communication, customer focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do. ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- -- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638| | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | | Center for Cultural Informatics | Information Systems Laboratory| Institute of Computer Science| Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | | N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | | Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | --
Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping
I would probably model these in one of two ways depending on the nature of the general association. A] As parts of a larger physical man made thing; so in your example the telephone box and the exchange a part of a regional telecommunications system which in turn is part of a national telecommunications system. B] As both being present/participating in a period, event or activity; so this Napoleonic sea fort and this Napoleonic military canal are constructed as events that form part of the Napoleonic British Defence Period. I suppose as a last resort you could create an Information Object which refers to them all and name the Information Object as "A list of things which I am interested in for X reason"; your essay of why could then be attached via P3 has note. In this case what you are modelling is not the relationship between the things but your/your organisation's believe that there is a relationship (however tenuous!) between them. HTH SdS Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail <mailto:ste...@paveprime.com> ste...@paveprime.com LinkedIn Profile <http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads> http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Carlisle, Philip Sent: 15 September 2016 11:16 To: crm-sig (Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr) Subject: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping Hi all, The Arches project moves on a pace and is in the process of modifying the graphs for version 4. In the original graphs we used a British Museum extension property (PXX_is_related_to) as a work around to allow us to represent the general association relationship we had in legacy datasets. eg. this telephone kiosk has a general association with this telephone exchange. We now want to continue to be able to model a general association but the only property available P69 has association with (is associated with) is restricted in its domain and range to E29 Design or Procedure. How do we model the 'If you're interested in that you might be interested in this' nature of the general association between two physical man made things? All thoughts appreciated. Phil Phil Carlisle Knowledge Organization Specialist Listing Group, Historic England Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 <http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/> http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ <http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/> http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are valued for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do.
[Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping
Hi all, The Arches project moves on a pace and is in the process of modifying the graphs for version 4. In the original graphs we used a British Museum extension property (PXX_is_related_to) as a work around to allow us to represent the general association relationship we had in legacy datasets. eg. this telephone kiosk has a general association with this telephone exchange. We now want to continue to be able to model a general association but the only property available P69 has association with (is associated with) is restricted in its domain and range to E29 Design or Procedure. How do we model the 'If you're interested in that you might be interested in this' nature of the general association between two physical man made things? All thoughts appreciated. Phil Phil Carlisle Knowledge Organization Specialist Listing Group, Historic England Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are valued for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do.
