[Crm-sig] E74 Group - Generalization

João Oliveira Lima joaoli13 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 16:15:27 EEST 2014


Dear Stephen Stead and Simon Spero,



    Thank you for your response.



    The picture is clearer but some doubts remains.



    Maybe the term "Group" is not best to denominate the "Collective Actor"
because the term "Group" is intrinsically tied with the "constitution"
idea. See, for example, the follow example extracted from "An Overview of
Ontoclean" (Guarino & Welty, Handbook on Ontologies, Springer Verlag,
(2004)):



"Take for instance two typical examples of social entities, such as a
bridge club and a poker club. These are clearly two separate entities, even
though precisely the same people may participate in both. Thus we would
have a state of affairs where, if the social entity was the group of
people, the two clubs would be the same under the identity criteria of the
group, and different under the identity criteria of the social entity. Note
also that if a club changes its members it is still the same club, but a
different group of people. The solution to the puzzle is that this is, once
again, a constitution relationship: a club is constituted of a group of
people.".



     In addition, it’s possible to talk about an instance of "E40 Legal
Body" that was constituted by only one "E21 Person".



     I've seen now that the FRBRoo

'F15 Complex Work' R10_has_member 'F1 Work'

     has similar membership structure:

'E74 Group' P107_has_current_or_former_member 'E39 Actor'.



Joao Lima


On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Stephen Stead <steads at paveprime.com>wrote:

> Joao Lima
>
> Do not be fooled by the name E74 Group! E74 Group is by definition groups
> of actors. The group of legislation (each an E28 Conceptual Objects)that
> you are mention is itself, another E28 Conceptual Object). The part
> decomposition function (using the appropriate Properties depending on the
> sort of things that have whole-part relationships) generally deals with
> this kind of thing.
>
> Hope This Helps
>
> SdS
>
>
>
> Stephen Stead
>
> Tel +44 20 8668 3075
>
> Mob +44 7802 755 013
>
> E-mail steads at paveprime.com
>
> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>
>
>
> *From:* Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] *On Behalf Of *João
> Oliveira Lima
> *Sent:* 28 April 2014 01:04
> *To:* crm-sig
> *Subject:* [Crm-sig] E74 Group - Generalization
>
>
>
> I was wondering if the class "E74 Group" could be generalized as follows:
>
> "E74 Group"
>
>      Subclass of "E1 Entity";
>
>
>
> "P107 has current or former member (is current or former member of)"
>
>      Domain "E74 Group"
>
>      Range "E1 Entity".
>
>
>
> With this generalization would be possible to represent groups of any
> entities (not just E39 Actors).
>
>
>
> For example, in the legislative process, a bill may be part of a group of
> bills that move together, as they dealt with similar matters. The bill
> group membership (or the exclusion) is formalized by a document (petition).
> In the field of cultural heritage, there are examples of groups like this?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Joao Lima
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20140428/e7721fa0/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list