[Crm-sig] reified association vs sub-event

Carlo Meghini carlo.meghini at cnr.it
Fri Oct 17 12:48:36 EEST 2014


Without sounding polemic, I’d like to comment on the “something more appropriate for 2014”. Please note that I am a peaceful guy and, on top of that, a great fan of description logics, which I have been using for twenty years (alas). 

I think the appropriateness of logic is not time-related, but rather purpose-related. In setting off for a logical analysis of the CRM, my purpose is not implementation but rather understanding. My first understanding from the yet incomplete exercise, is that no OWL implementation is going to be equivalent to the CRM. So, if one is interested in understanding the CRM, he should NOT look at an OWL implementation. He may look at the current specs, but, if in need of some formal account, I would not know where to look.

The exercise proves difficult. Just to mention one source of difficulty, in a CRM KB one finds (1) facts encoded in triples, (2) (possibly) the same facts encoded in propositional objects about which other facts are expressed in triples, and (3) knowledge about the process that produced (1) and (2). Trying to linearise these representations, for instance to do sound reasoning on them, is in my opinion a challenging exercise.

And then there are extensions: the CRM is being extended in a number of ways and I believe it is better to analyse these extensions in the neutral language of logic, entirely free of any expressive limitations. Two interesting extensions are: 

(1) handling different propositional attitudes in the same KB, i.e.: regarding some triple as categorical knowledge and other triples as beliefs, or hypothesis, and being able to reason about both.

(2) handling uncertainty. 

Sorry for the long message.

Carlo

On 17 Oct 2014, at 03:17, Karl Grossner <karlg at stanford.edu> wrote:

> This thread spurred me to finally revisit some work I did in 2010 that departed from both CIDOC and DOLCE by reifying a participated relation to get at roles among other things. Just wrote a blog post about it, with links and figures, and plan to convert the model soon from FOL and an object-relational schema to something more appropriate for 2014, like OWL2.  (http://kgeographer.com/wp/stuff1a/)
> 
> My (probably naive) view is that reification enables sensical open world systems, by permitting attribution of individual statements. Or if open world is strictly AAA, without identifying who Anyone is, what use would it be?
> 
> Karl
> 
> ------------------
> Karl Grossner, PhD
> Digital Humanities Research Developer
> Stanford University Libraries
> Stanford,CA US
> www.kgeographer.org
> 
> 
> 
> On 16/10/2014 12:08, martin wrote:
> 
> I'd like to ask you to be focussed in your messages.
> While we're being focused, could I point out that Vladimir hasn't yet received any guidance on his original question? 
> 
> This related (IIUC) to a suggestion made by Martin and Dominic that, as an approach, sub-events are more "open world", while reification is more "closed world".
> 
> Richard
> -- 
> Richard Light
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

------------------------------------------------------------    
Carlo Meghini                                                                      
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie della Informazione [ ISTI ]    
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche [ CNR ]                                      
Via G. Moruzzi, 1 - 56124 Pisa - Italy                                             
Tel: +39 050 6212893       E-Mail: Carlo.Meghini at isti.cnr.it   
Fax: +39 050 6213464       Web: nmis.isti.cnr.it/meghini/    
------------------------------------------------------------







More information about the Crm-sig mailing list