[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