*Title**Rename E74 from Group to GroupOfActors**Background* Let a <group> be an aggregation of one or more members, where the identity of the <group> is not determined solely by the members of the <group> (thus distinguishing <group> from <set>).
>From the definition of P107, it is clear that every E74 refers to <group>; otherwise the existence of a former member would imply that the group no longer exists. However, E74 has stronger semantics beyond that of a basic <group>. Every member of an instance of E74 is a <group> all of whose members are E39_Actor's. This restriction is not reflected in the label of E74, and can lead to confusion. *Old Proposal* *Current Proposal*Classes whose instances are <group>, all of whose members are instances of a specified class <MemberClass> should be given labels of the form "Group of <MemberLabel-pl>" where <MemberLabel-pl> is the plural form of the label of <MemberClass>. For E74, MemberClass is Actor; this proposal would thus assign E74 the label "Group Of Actors". If OWL is used, a single membership property can be used, with restriction classes used to specify member type. (this also suggests that P107.1 may be awkwardly named, since it appears to denote the role of a member within a group (a members role in a group may change over time)*Outcome* *Status*proposed*Working Group* *Starting Date**Closing Date* [There are other changes I would suggest making to E74 separate from this proposal. - allowing groups to consist of only a single member - considering whether a group may become dormant (have zero members), then gain new members, yet retain its identity as the same group - that is, whether the group can be temporally discontinuous. This would cover, for example, a student society that publishes journals, , is inactive for a year or so, then reforms. There are also issues with P107 and P107.1 ] Simon On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:31 AM, martin <mar...@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Dear Joao, > > Your comments well taken! - one of the most important principles of the > CRM is that > the label is never a definition. In 15 years, we could never reconcile > linguistic values with > clear semantics under the functional restrictions of the CRM. > > The label is only a mnemonic, the definition is exlusively the scope note, > and the identity > exclusively the E-number. If this could be better pointed out in our > documentation, > comments are MOST welcome. > > The definition of "group" by Guarino& Welty has nothing to do with E74 > Group. Actually, > he is talking about what other ontologies would call an "aggregate", like > ORE's > "ore:aggregation", or an enumeration, sometimes even a collection. We > cannot avoid that other ontologies use different senses for the same word. > However, we commit to the point Guarino is making here: E74 Group is > "constituted by" an aggregate of persons. The CRM property "has former or > current member" is a kind of constitution exactly in the sense of Guarino. > > Our reasons to use the label "Group" was to be close to one natural use of > the term, such as > a "Working Group", a "group" of (joined) industries, a group of hikers, a > discussion group etc. which imply common intentions, temporarily or > permanently. > > It's always a hard decision to coin new terms, which make the ontology > appear more and more alien, but do not relieve from good definitions in the > end. > > Any renaming proposals are also always welcome, and will be treated as > issues. > > Best wishes, > > Martin > > > On 28/4/2014 4:15 μμ, João Oliveira Lima wrote: > > Dear Stephen Stead and Simon Spero, > > > > Thank you for your response. > > > > The picture is clearer but some doubts remains. > > > > Maybe the term "Group" is not best to denominate the "Collective > Actor" because the term "Group" is intrinsically tied with the > "constitution" idea. See, for example, the follow example extracted from > "An Overview of Ontoclean" (Guarino & Welty, Handbook on Ontologies, > Springer Verlag, (2004)): > > > > "Take for instance two typical examples of social entities, such as a > bridge club and a poker club. These are clearly two separate entities, even > though precisely the same people may participate in both. Thus we would > have a state of affairs where, if the social entity was the group of > people, the two clubs would be the same under the identity criteria of the > group, and different under the identity criteria of the social entity. Note > also that if a club changes its members it is still the same club, but a > different group of people. The solution to the puzzle is that this is, once > again, a constitution relationship: a club is constituted of a group of > people.". > > > > In addition, it’s possible to talk about an instance of "E40 Legal > Body" that was constituted by only one "E21 Person". > > > > I've seen now that the FRBRoo > > 'F15 Complex Work' R10_has_member 'F1 Work' > > has similar membership structure: > > 'E74 Group' P107_has_current_or_former_member 'E39 Actor'. > > > > Joao Lima > > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Stephen Stead <ste...@paveprime.com>wrote: > >> Joao Lima >> >> Do not be fooled by the name E74 Group! E74 Group is by definition groups >> of actors. The group of legislation (each an E28 Conceptual Objects)that >> you are mention is itself, another E28 Conceptual Object). The part >> decomposition function (using the appropriate Properties depending on the >> sort of things that have whole-part relationships) generally deals with >> this kind of thing. >> >> Hope This Helps >> >> SdS >> >> >> >> Stephen Stead >> >> Tel +44 20 8668 3075 <%2B44%2020%208668%203075> >> >> Mob +44 7802 755 013 <%2B44%207802%20755%20013> >> >> E-mail ste...@paveprime.com >> >> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads >> >> >> >> *From:* Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] *On Behalf Of *João >> Oliveira Lima >> *Sent:* 28 April 2014 01:04 >> *To:* crm-sig >> *Subject:* [Crm-sig] E74 Group - Generalization >> >> >> >> I was wondering if the class "E74 Group" could be generalized as follows: >> >> "E74 Group" >> >> Subclass of "E1 Entity"; >> >> >> >> "P107 has current or former member (is current or former member of)" >> >> Domain "E74 Group" >> >> Range "E1 Entity". >> >> >> >> With this generalization would be possible to represent groups of any >> entities (not just E39 Actors). >> >> >> >> For example, in the legislative process, a bill may be part of a group of >> bills that move together, as they dealt with similar matters. The bill >> group membership (or the exclusion) is formalized by a document (petition). >> In the field of cultural heritage, there are examples of groups like this? >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Joao Lima >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing > listCrm-sig@ics.forth.grhttp://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | > | > Center for Cultural Informatics | > Information Systems Laboratory | > Institute of Computer Science | > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > >
