[Crm-sig] crm:E55 Type vs. rdfs:class

Dan Matei Dan at cimec.ro
Tue Mar 20 23:20:28 EET 2012


Friends


I'm working on a CRM/FRBRoo-based system (the store is RDF like, unorthodox RDF :-)

(Sorry if the issue was already settled.)

Beside E55 Type, I need something like rdfs:class, because I'm not comfortable using Type for "conceptual objects" like UDC classes, e.g. 111.85 = beauty (and ugliness) or 
347.51 = civic responsibility in general; but also for "the 4 Evangelists".

I'm tempted to extend CRM/FRBRoo and to make rdfs:class a subclass of E28 Conceptual Object.

Wordnet defines:

•	S: (n) concept, conception, construct (an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances)
inherited hypernyms:
•	S: (n) idea, thought (the content of cognition; the main thing you are thinking about) "it was not a good idea"; "the thought never entered my mind"
•	S: (n) content, cognitive content, mental object (the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned) 
•	S: (n) cognition, knowledge, noesis (the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning) 
•	S: (n) psychological feature (a feature of the mental life of a living organism) 
•	S: (n) abstraction, abstract entity (a general concept formed by extracting common features from specific examples) 
•	S: (n) entity (that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving))

and
 
•	S: (n) class, category, family (a collection of things sharing a common attribute) "there are two classes of detergents"
inherited hypernyms:
•	S: (n) collection, aggregation, accumulation, assemblage (several things grouped together or considered as a whole) 
•	S: (n) group, grouping (any number of entities (members) considered as a unit) 
•	S: (n) abstraction, abstract entity (a general concept formed by extracting common features from specific examples) 
•	S: (n) entity (that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)) 


Their "lowest common hypernym" is "abstraction", 2/4 steps up in the hierarchy. But in practice the border between them is often unclear. For instance, if I say: "books 
printed before 1501", that's a class. But if this class has a name, say "incunable", I would see it as a concept.

So, what do you think ? It is reasonable to make such an extension ?

Thanks,

Dan




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Matei
director, Direcția Cercetare, Evidență a Patrimoniului Cultural Mobil, Imaterial și Digital [Movable, Intangible and 
Digital Heritage Department] (aka CIMEC)
Institutul Național al Patrimoniului [National Heritage Institute]
București [Bucharest, Romania]
tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64
www.cimec.ro




More information about the Crm-sig mailing list