Got it!
So, the specific problem is to enable E13 to point to .1 properties.
That appears to be a problem of E13, and possibly of 3M, isn't it? Could
be solved by a more specific construct.
Best,
Martin
On 5/8/2023 9:14 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
Hi Martin,
The problem to solve is, how
Hi Martin,
The problem to solve is, how do you find who said that .1 anything?
This is often where the true scholarly interest is. It is a matter for
aliens and economists to count how many people were involved in carrying
out actions in a knowledge graph (the pure empirical picture). Actually,
Dear Christian-Emil,
On 5/8/2023 6:36 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:
Hi all,
The E13 Attribute assignment construct does not create any formal
connection between an instance of E13 and the instance of the
property it documents. We have the property
P177 assigned
Hi George,
On 5/8/2023 5:34 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
Hi Rob and Martin,
But the point is not to make assertions about the property class
itself but the instance of the property class.
of course
The instance of PC14 says Bob was the creator, Bob was a faker... it
is a regular abox
Hi all,
The E13 Attribute assignment construct does not create any formal connection
between an instance of E13 and the instance of the property it documents. We
have the property
P177
assigned property of type (is type of property assigned):
E55 Type.
It is no formal connection between
Hi Rob and Martin,
But the point is not to make assertions about the property class itself but
the instance of the property class.
The instance of PC14 says Bob was the creator, Bob was a faker... it is a
regular abox assertion. And it has an identifier, necessarily.
The instances of PC classes
Perhaps for the first time, I agree with Martin and not George!
The PC classes are part of the ontological layer -- we don't say that
classes or properties are descendants of E1. Or PC classes are T box
(terminology) and not A box (assertions using that terminology).
(See -
Dear All,
I don't think it is correct to make the PC classes entities. Even though
formally an RDF class could be regarded as an entity, ontologically we
distinguish entities and relationships. The E-R paradigm makes this
distinction also formally clear. We model the properties with .1
Dear George, all,
This is a lot of work, so thank you. Looking forward to discussing this,
I am sending a list of things to check as I browse through them:
* Some labels have underscores, others do not - I prefer without given
that we never use underscores in the main document
* I am not
Hi all,
I would argue that the safest thing to do is to make the PCs a subclass of
E1 and then see where we go from there. I agree with Martin that it can't
be an information object (because everything would be then) but I imagine
we would have a debate about what each .1 actually ontologically
Dear Martin,
I see your point, thank you for the explanation. Maybe, this was also the
motivation for introducing the property classes? (instead of using standard
rdf reification): an instance of a property class intends to represent a
specific relation in the real world, not a triple/statement
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.
12 matches
Mail list logo
