Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

2023-05-11 Thread Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
Dear Francesco, This is an excellent paper. I cite: "However, reification has no formal semantics, and leads to a high increase in the number of triples, hence, it does not scale well. " I agree with your proposals. Prov-O mapping is a must for CRM-SIG. Best, Martin On 5/10/2023 11:55 PM,

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

2023-05-11 Thread George Bruseker via Crm-sig
Dear Francesco, Martin, Again for the record since I seem to be being read at cross purposes, when I mention the word 'provenance' I do not mean it in the sense of dataset provenance (to which prov o would apply). I mean that in the world to be described (the real world of tables charis cats dogs

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

2023-05-11 Thread Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
Dear George, I agree with you below about the historical aspects. The annotation model has the same historical aspect, but is not limited to a single link. Let us discuss!😁 Best, Martin On 5/11/2023 12:41 PM, George Bruseker wrote: Dear Francesco, Martin, Again for the record since I seem

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

2023-05-11 Thread George Bruseker via Crm-sig
Dear Martin, I agree that E13 is a poor man's solution to a complicated problem. But it is for some, the solution available. Other solutions like Inf for documenting historical argumentation and using named graphs is great as a possibility. Using prov o to represent the meta discursive level of th

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

2023-05-11 Thread Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig
If the intent is that the assertion is in the discourse, and not a syntactic workaround for .1 properties that would be unnecessary if we had RDF* or property graphs, then I would say E13 is exactly the right approach to use. In comparison, I consider the PC classes to be just that - a syntactic wo

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

2023-05-11 Thread Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
Dear Robert, We have just created the new issue to discuss this in detail. We should prepare a detailed analysis, citing all pros and cons. May be we continue this discussion better in a subgroup? Named Graphs are not a very specific technology, if we take the fact that all current triple st

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

2023-05-11 Thread Dominic Oldman via Crm-sig
Hi Just a quick question on this. We develop the model independently of technology. I can see that this discussion is getting technical. I currently implement propositions sets using RDF named graphs because we can and it works but it is not stipulated. Rob suggests that there are tech upgrades th

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]

2023-05-11 Thread Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig
Dear Martin, Thank you for your explanations, and sorry that I cannot join the discussion of this issue today. I think my point was that your formalisation is for "directly triggered", whereas the flood example suggests that "triggered" can also be used in the sense of "eventually triggered".