[Crm-sig] non-existent objects / meta-CRM
Michael Hopwood
michael at editeur.org
Thu Nov 8 12:21:27 EET 2012
Is this a job for meta-CRM?
Do you want to say "we assert this is the type of statue that *normally* has a base BUT this instance of that class has lost its base"?
Hence all you have is two statements, one of a class membership (defined separately?) and one of a part loss event.
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/working_editions_cidoc.html [halfway down the page]
RE: sheep or sheep - for this case there is a plural morpheme, "sheep", isn't there? It just happens to be identical with the singular morpheme since in English we more or less lost the type of "Schaf" / "Schaefe" internal changes ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural
On 7/11/2012 5:17 ??, 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 "Fu?platte/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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:44:31 +0000
From: Alexander Dutton <alexander.dutton at oucs.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] non-existent objects
To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Message-ID: <509A9DFF.8020203 at oucs.ox.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
If you're willing to use OWL, I *think* you can do (in Turtle):
:statue a :Baseless .
:Baseless a owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf [
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty crm:P46_is_composed_of ;
owl:allValuesFrom [
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty crm:P2_has_type ;
owl:allValuesFrom [
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty rdf:value ;
owl:hasValue "Basisplatte"
]
]
owl:cardinality 0
] .
or:
:statue a [
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty crm:P46_is_composed_of ;
owl:allValuesFrom [
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty crm:P2_has_type ;
owl:allValuesFrom [
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty rdf:value ;
owl:hasValue "Basisplatte"
]
]
owl:cardinality 0
] .
If that doesn't work (I don't know whether using allValuesFrom and cardinality together is legal), it may be possible to use owl:complementOf to say that the statue is in the complement of the set of things that have bases. (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#complementOf-def)
This is pretty much my first foray into OWL, so please forgive my inevitable wrongness.
Yours,
Alex
On 07/11/12 15:17, 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 "Fu?platte/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
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
End of Crm-sig Digest, Vol 70, Issue 4
**************************************
More information about the Crm-sig
mailing list