[Crm-sig] non-existent objects
martin
martin at ics.forth.gr
Wed Nov 7 19:02:52 EET 2012
Dear All,
Supporting Thanassi, we have
a)
E22 (the statue, including the setup)
P2 has type E55 Type["Statue with setup"]
P46 is composed of E22 (the setup) P2 has type E55 Type ["Basisplatte"]
P46 is composed of E22 (statue proper) P2 has type E55 Type e.g. ["Statue proper"]
b)
E22 (the setup) P2 has type E55 Type ["Basisplatte"] "don't know if ever had a statue"
c)
E22 (statue without) P2 has type E55 Type ["Statue without Basiplatte"] "didn't use a setup"
d)
E22 (the statue, including the setup)
P2 has type E55 Type["Statue with setup"]
P46 is composed of E22 (the setup) P2 has type E55 Type ["Basisplatte"]
p44 has condition E3 Condition State P2 has type ["Statue missing"]
has timeSpan [?:NOW]
The "pre CRM" Max points to is not a CRM issue, but an RDF & Open World issue.
You can do it in RDF: You define all CRM properties again as "not", and interpret it
as three valued logic:
e)
E22 (the statue, including the setup)
P2 has type E55 Type["Statue with setup"]
P46 is composed of E22 (the setup) P2 has type E55 Type ["Basisplatte"]
P46N is not composed of E22 (statue proper) P2 has type E55 Type e.g. ["Statue proper"]
But then, you have to decide if you mean "never had" or when?
Best,
Martin
On 7/11/2012 5:17 μμ, Wolfgang Schmidle wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am working on Arachne's Cidoc representation, and we came across a
> problem with non-existent objects and how to state their non-existence.
>
> A statue may be set up using e.g. a base or a plinth. In Arachne this
> can be specified in a data field called "Aufstellung" ("setup"). One can
> choose a description from a fixed list, for example "Basisplatte" or
> "Fußplatte/Plinthe". Now, we could model it as
>
> E22 (the statue, without setup) P46i forms part of E22 (the statue
> plus the setup) P2 has type E55 Type e.g. "Basisplatte"
>
> but I am told that the setup should be seen as a part of the statue.
> Consequently we are modelling it as
>
> E22 (the statue, including the setup) P46 is composed of E22 (the
> setup) P2 has type E55 Type e.g. "Basisplatte"
>
> However, Aufstellung may also have the value "ohne Basis" ("without
> base"). In this case the second E22 would denote a non-existent object,
> and its Type "ohne Basis" would state the non-existence of this object.
> (If the data field is left empty, we make no statement at all about the
> setup.)
>
> Is this the right way to model it? And is there a problem in RDF with an
> URI for a non-existent object?
>
> Additional question: Does Cidoc have an opinion about the the exact
> meaning of E22 P46 E22 P2 E55 "ohne Basis"? Let's take the word "sheep"
> as an example, where the singular and plural forms are the same: one
> sheep, two sheep. Is it comparable to A) "while most words have a plural
> morpheme, the particular word sheep has none", or B) "for systematic
> reasons we assume that all words have a plural morpheme, but for the
> particular word sheep it is null"?
>
> Thanks,
> Wolfgang
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 |
Research Director | 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) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Crm-sig
mailing list