[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
otherwise.

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

Good idea !

Best,

Dan

>
>
-------------- 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