[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