[Crm-sig] A hoard as crm:E78_Collection ?

Dan Matei danmatei50 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 1 19:26:47 EET 2014

Dear Martin

On 1 December 2014 at 17:26, martin <martin at ics.forth.gr> wrote:

> This is a deep methodological question:
> "True that crm:E19_Physical_Object "includes all aggregates of objects",
> but I feel the need of something like crm:Fx_Assemblage between crm:E19_Physical_Object
> and E78_Collection, because I would like to make a clear (conceptual)
> distinction between:
> <helmet>  <crm:Py_is_component_of> <armor> or <coin> <
> crm:Py_is_component_of > <hoard>
>  and
> <wheel>  <crm:P46i_forms_part_of> <car>"
> This is not what we have made the CRM for. You SHOULD not make such a
> distinction,
> if there is no use case that would create query ambiguity. CRM is not a
> language to describe the nuances of cultural heritage objects. Since a
> hoard cannot have parts like a car,  and a car not parts like a hoard, the
> distinction does not help in any query.
My main criterion (not always explicit !) to use one property or other is
not the query (dis)ambiguity, but the facility of the semantic reasoning,
i.e. inference. Am I wrong ?

So, my feeling (not more than that) is that the reasoner is helped if
crm:Py_is_component_of suggests that the subject of the assertion is a
thing "functional" in itself, vs. crm:P46i_forms_part_of that suggests

 We have built the CRM because we had such principles. It is overdue to
write them down.

Good idea !



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20141201/d3d1cff6/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list