[Crm-sig] E74 Group - Generalization

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Mon Apr 28 18:31:16 EEST 2014

Dear Joao,

Your comments well taken! - one of the most important principles of the 
CRM is that
the label is never a definition. In 15 years, we could never reconcile 
linguistic values with
clear semantics under the functional restrictions of the CRM.

The label is only a mnemonic, the definition is exlusively the scope 
note, and the identity
exclusively the E-number. If this could be better pointed out in our 
comments are MOST welcome.

The definition of "group" by Guarino& Welty has nothing to do with E74 
Group. Actually,
he is talking about what other ontologies would call an "aggregate", 
like ORE's
"ore:aggregation", or an enumeration, sometimes even a collection. We 
cannot avoid that other ontologies use different senses for the same 
word. However, we commit to the point Guarino is making here: E74 Group 
is "constituted by" an aggregate of persons. The CRM property "has 
former or current member" is a kind of constitution exactly in the sense 
of Guarino.

Our reasons to use the label "Group" was to be close to one natural use 
of the term, such as
a "Working Group", a "group" of (joined) industries, a group of hikers, 
a discussion group etc. which imply common intentions, temporarily or 

It's always a hard decision to coin new terms, which make  the ontology 
appear more and more alien, but do not relieve from good definitions in 
the end.

Any renaming proposals are also always welcome, and will be treated as 

Best wishes,


On 28/4/2014 4:15 ??, João Oliveira Lima wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B44%2020%208668%203075>
>     Mob +44 7802 755 013 <tel:%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
>     E-mail steads at paveprime.com <mailto:steads at paveprime.com>
>     LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>     *From:*Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr
>     <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
> _______________________________________________
> 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           |

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20140428/3ffb1ac1/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list