[Crm-sig] P107.1 and P144.1, a negative vote

Christian-Emil Ore c.e.s.ore at edd.uio.no
Wed Nov 26 21:43:30 EET 2008


I think we can remove the "two or more". A company (legal body) does not 
  have members in a strict sense.

I think it is fine groups as members of other groups to define the group 
of employees etc in a company.

I can also understand the temptation to use groups of singletons etc to 
express relations. Still I think one should find a better way. My 
colleague Øyvind Eide did not like the idea to express the serialization 
in RDF of this way to express relations between individuals.

Regartds,
Christian-Emil

On 24.11.2008 12:14, martin wrote:
> Dear Christian-Emil,
> 
> Christian-Emil Ore wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I will write a little note about the singleton and the groups. I will 
>> just point out that the current scope note of group, states explicitly 
>> that a group must have two or more members. The scope note does not 
>> say anything about time since the persistent items are timeless. Thus 
>> I assume that an office like the presidency of US is a group.
>>
>> There is also another aspect with group, "act collectively or in a 
>> similar way due to any form of unifying relationship". The question is 
>> if all related persons have this property.?
> 
> That's a very good point! I would take this as a clear distinction of a 
> role as
> an "office" in a Group from a pure relationship.
> 
> Should we just drop "two or more" ? Because an office may start with one
> person, but be desolved before a second person would come in?
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> martin
> 
> 
>> Chr-Emi
>>
>> Scope note
>> This class comprises any gatherings or organizations of two or more 
>> people that act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of 
>> unifying relationship
>>
>>
>> On 21.11.2008 18:30, martin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> c.e.s.ore at edd.uio.no wrote:
>>>> Dear Martin and all
>>>> I still think it is artifical because one in this way use groups as
>>>> extensions of thought predicates. This is of course already 
>>>> introduce by
>>>> the use of group as a way to simulate/implement  interpersonal 
>>>> relations. I am not quit sure I buy the argument that this is the 
>>>> ontological nature.
>>>> It also moves much of the deduction from the CRM "proper" to the type
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> The most important thing for "my" user group is the short cut and 
>>>> not the
>>>> elaborated path, because in written source one usually only get
>>>> information about the relation and nothing more.  I am interested to 
>>>> see
>>>> how the shortcut is done in this set approach
>>>>
>>>> So I will no withdraw my suggestion until convinced or down voted.
>>>>
>>>> Ad voting in the SIG. I think secret voting like in this case is not a
>>>> good patrh to follow. I  prefer an open dabate.
>>>
>>> Of course, I didn't want to count the vote, but I found the idea 
>>> interesting,
>>> always in the spirit of keeping CRM a core model.
>>>
>>> If no other votes come in until Monday, I regard the issue as accepted.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Christian-Emil
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Christian-Emil,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this is the solution. Of course you may argue, that it is more
>>>>> indirect.
>>>>> P107 is both, individual member and subgroup membership. So, there 
>>>>> is a
>>>>> subgroup
>>>>> membership. My question, you may express the problem with "very
>>>>> artificial", is actually
>>>>> what the ontological nature, the substance of the roles are. If 
>>>>> they are
>>>>> positions,
>>>>> personae, they would be not so much relations between an Individual 
>>>>> and
>>>>> the Group, but a
>>>>> structure of the Group, and would be better expressed by 
>>>>> specializations
>>>>> of Groups and
>>>>> their parts. If we regard them as relational, they are better 
>>>>> expressed by
>>>>> subproperties
>>>>> or 107.1 . If we keep 107.1, and regard nevertheless the model of
>>>>> singleton Groups as valid,
>>>>> then, p107.1 would represent shortcuts over singleton Groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> c.e.s.ore at edd.uio.no wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>> First of all it is difficult to comment a solution which is not
>>>>>> presented
>>>>>> but just referred to. I assume that this unknown suggested 
>>>>>> solution is
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assume a master and an apprentice: An actor can be the only member 
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>> singleton group. The relationship master.-apprentice can be 
>>>>>> expressed as
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> group having the master-singleton and the apprentice-singleton as
>>>>>> members.
>>>>>> The type of the singleton-group can express the relation the members
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> in the master-apprentice group. If this is the solution it is of 
>>>>>> course
>>>>>> possible but very artificial like epicycle models of  the planet 
>>>>>> orbits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I may be blind, but I dont find any sub group property in the model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Christian-Emil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just received a contribution voting against P107.1 and P144.1,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with the argument that following our definition of Group, it can be
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> an office or
>>>>>>> position. So, we could model master and apprentice as subgroups - no
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> for any extension.
>>>>>>> Also, this could consistently describe changing positions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Comments welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>   Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
>>>>>>>   Principle Researcher          |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
>>>>>>>                                 |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
>>>>>>>                                                               |
>>>>>>>                 Center for Cultural Informatics               |
>>>>>>>                 Information Systems Laboratory                |
>>>>>>>                  Institute of Computer Science                |
>>>>>>>     Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
>>>>>>>                                                               |
>>>>>>>   Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
>>>>>>>                                                               |
>>>>>>>           Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl               |
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>>>>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>>>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>   Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
>>>>>   Principle Researcher          |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
>>>>>                                 |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
>>>>>                                                               |
>>>>>                 Center for Cultural Informatics               |
>>>>>                 Information Systems Laboratory                |
>>>>>                  Institute of Computer Science                |
>>>>>     Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
>>>>>                                                               |
>>>>>   Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
>>>>>                                                               |
>>>>>           Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl               |
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list