[Crm-sig] CRM and FOL was RE: reified association vs sub-event
Christian-Emil Smith Ore
c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Sun Oct 19 22:50:44 EEST 2014
I have to admit that I was somewhat skeptical when I first heard about the work on defining CIDOC-CRM in first order logic. The museum sector may find the CRM definition hard enough as it is. When I read the draft paper before the CRM-SIG meeting earlier this month, it stroke me that the formulation of CRM in first order logic was compact but very clarifying to me (I have to add that I have worked with logic and type theory before converting into Digital Humanities). I don't demand that everybody should read statements in first order logic and I don't demand that everybody should understand the long and complex formulation in OWL (in fact much more difficult to understand than the plain notation of FOL). A nice effect of the FOL formulation of CRM is that it will serve as a concise specification for the groups developing OWL (and DL) implementations of the standard, eg in Erlangen.
>From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Karl
>Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:00 PM
>To: Carlo Meghini
>Cc: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] reified association vs sub-event
>> Without sounding polemic, I’d like to comment on the “something more
>> appropriate for 2014”. Please note that I am a peaceful guy
>thank goodness, me too. ;^)
>> 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
>“something more appropriate for 2014” was an ironic dig at myself for
>publishing my modeling patterns written in FOL, a form few can read, and
>not directly usable in systems -- as opposed to RDFS and OWL, which may be
>sufficient, and are accessible to more colleagues in the DH projects I work on.
>I love logic and the promise of inference and enthusiastically support
>analysis of CRM and its potentially more formal expression! I was 'not up to
>DL' at the time -- not critical of it.
>> 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.
>I see now that you and Martin had a paper on CRM in FOL. I had missed this,
>and wasn't commenting on the worth of the effort at all! The representation
>of my own ontology design patterns in FOL gave me understanding (and
>clarified still unanswered dilemmas). Ultimately I'm very attuned to
>implementation right now.
>> 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.
>I guess I agree, since that's what I did for my own. They were/are more
>extensions of DOLCE, but CRM was always in the mix.
>I will read the paper and follow this work with great interest!
>> 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 -
>> Tel: +39 050 6212893 E-Mail: Carlo.Meghini at isti.cnr.it
>> Fax: +39 050 6213464 Web: nmis.isti.cnr.it/meghini/
>Crm-sig mailing list
>Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
More information about the Crm-sig