[Crm-sig] reified association vs sub-event

Vladimir Alexiev vladimir.alexiev at ontotext.com
Tue Oct 14 19:44:19 EEST 2014


Hi everyone! 
(This is particularly for Martin and Dominic, but comments from everyone are welcome)

The BM mapping uses two patterns to express the relation of an entity (typically person) to an event:

1. use reification over the relation (bmo:EX_Association is a subclass of CRM Attribute Assignment):
  https://confluence.ontotext.com/display/ResearchSpace/BM+Association+Mapping+v2#BMAssociationMappingv2-TranslatedCodeInReifiedAssociation 
  Illustrated on http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/CRMPrimer_v1.1.pdf   p.15

2. make sub-event (e.g. Production part) and put the relation type there:
  https://confluence.ontotext.com/display/ResearchSpace/BM+Association+Mapping+v2#BMAssociationMappingv2-TranslatedCodeinSubEvents
  This is not well illustrated in the CRMPrimer:
  p17 shows a sole event part, and p18 shows two parts but without P2_has_type.
  But you get the idea

2 is used more often in the mapping (see the page above).
1 is used less often: for Influenced/Motivated relations (not for P14 carried out by), and to express uncertainty.
Specifically: Acquired Through (contributor), Probably/Unlikely Produced By, (production) Influenced By, Production Motivated By, Probably Produced At, Made For Place

Martin and Dominic have said that 2 is more open-world while 1 is more close-world.
Could you please explain this to me?
It's very important for me as I move closer to Getty ULAN and CONA modeling.

Thanks in advance!




More information about the Crm-sig mailing list