[Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90
RSanderson at getty.edu
Tue Feb 27 19:44:09 EET 2018
A Pxx_has_symbolic_value (range Symbolic Object, domain string) would be great. The encoding, character set and format of the string are further interesting and orthogonal concerns.
From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of George Bruseker <bruseker at ics.forth.gr>
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 7:00 AM
To: Franco Niccolucci <franco.niccolucci at gmail.com>
Cc: "crm-sig (Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr)" <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90
As a follow-up to this issue, I wanted to point towards issue 240 from the CRM queue. It’s a pending issue but is perhaps apropos. If the question is where to stick actual data values of texts if you don’t have a URI to point to then perhaps adopting the solution suggested there provide a good answer?
On Feb 22, 2018, at 11:46 AM, George Bruseker <bruseker at ics.forth.gr<mailto:bruseker at ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
Dear Phil et al.,
I think this is a case of interpreting the label of the property rather than its intention. CRM ‘has value’ isn’t supposed to cover all possible meanings of the natural language interpretation of has value. Rather it has a very restricted use. It is meant to give the quantitive number value associated to a dimension. Dimension is a class that should be used to store information that results from a measurement activity. The measurement activity is specified as some procedural event that has the intentional objective of producing quantitative data. It is an activity of interacting with the world with the intention of producing a quantitive result.
So it would be a nonsensical, to say 'this paragraph (E73) has dimension (E54 defined as a quantitive result from a measuring procedure) has value “the characters in this paragraph” (E59 primitive value). The definition of E54 forbids it because a string is not a quantity (though of course it may have a quantity… that would have to be measure).
That of course sounds irritating. It would be nice to have a property that could store all values. But then of course that property would mean everything and nothing and the ontology wouldn’t work for getting specific information, like the quantitative results of measurement activities separate from any other value ‘good’ ‘bad’ ‘ugly’ ‘monogamy’ ‘world peace’ ‘all the characters in this present string’.
That’s the ontological argument. The practical question is why you are looking to expand the scope. I’m guessing that the reason is because you want a unique place to store a data value (this is a guess, so please do correct my presumption if I’m wrong).
This seems to me to get back to the encoding issue and having a standard strategy. I think that a usual suggestion could be to throw it into string via P3 via note. Another suggestion would be to put it in label and, as I recall, there is rdf has value which could hold the actual data points. You will note, in retort, that p3 handles different kinds of information so is not a good solution. Point taken.
In any case, I would argue that increasing the range of the existing property to E1 E59 clearly cannot work because that would be a completely different meaning of the property and it would cause all sorts of backwards incompatibilities and data problems. It would really be an undoing of good information structure. That being said, some sort of solution either in the ontology or as an encoding formalization of where to stick the actual ‘values’ of an entity ought to be found.
I think the right direction might already have been found with CRMsci which generalizes the notion of measurement to observation. Observation is a class that documents events of systematic observing (without that this be measuring, a clearly distinct and different real life human activity with different parameters of interest) and allows the tracing of observing a value (here the range is even more radical, set at E1) and setting the property type. (see the definitions http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/2017-03-22%23CRMsci1.2.3_esIP.pdf) This has a great deal of flexibility since we need to know not just the value of any random thing that someone has assigned to some object, but at the very least, of what type it is.
Consider one of Rob’s examples:
‘linguistic objects have values’
Linguistic Object: here do mean the characters themselves? the propositional content? the darkness of the font, the font type, the style of encoding. these are all potential values of the linguistic object. Obviously we don’t want to let our ontology toss all this in the same bucket, right? I think the same argument would go for appellation.
Not to mention, how one could irritatingly misinterpet the sentence ‘linguistic objects have values’ to imply their adherence to a dogma, a political party, a certain sense of taste in dress.
Digital Image, I am not sure we would have a problem with, as it is a mathematical object and as such I guess its properties are quantitive and therefore just good old fashioned dimension.
All this being said, obviously you raise the issue because there are things that you need to document in the real world and are presently unable to encode as you would need using CRM. Obviously, something like a property with the natural language interpretation of ‘has value’ has an intuitive appeal. Would you give a few examples of the problems areas (I would certainly not assert that they do not exist), so we can think together of a solution that is ontologically sound and pragmatically applicable?
On Feb 21, 2018, at 7:30 PM, Franco Niccolucci <franco.niccolucci at gmail.com<mailto:franco.niccolucci at gmail.com>> wrote:
The current way of representing something similar (but different) to what you propose is:
E70 Thing -> P43 has dimension -> E54 Dimension -> P90 has value -> E60 Number
The path starts from Things (and not CRM Entities) and ends to Numbers (and not Primitive Values, i.e. also Strings, Time Primitives and whatever we can invent in the future): it gives a numeric value to a thing.
The proposed change would allow giving, through the "new" P90, a generic value defined as E59 Primitive Value, i.e anything, also to E2 Temporal Entities, E53 Places etc, all subclasses of E1.
What can be an example of the Primitive Value of a Temporal Entity or of a Place?
For example “Bronze Age”, an instance of E4 Period, cannot have a primitive value whatever; it may have a Time Span and take place somewhere in a Place. Time spans may P83/84 have durations, instances of E54.
Dimensions would need to be considered not only as something that can be measured with numbers only: for example “poor - fair - good - excellent” would be acceptable for the space of Values, same for “strings of UTF8 characters”. It is not necessary to specify what the values is, as it by definition could be anything
So I would rather suggest to leave the domain of P43 as is, i.e. Things only; and the range of P90, as you propose, could become E59, i.e. strings or anything else to be created as subclass of E59, without short-cutting the above.
This allows specifying what we are talking about the Thing (its length, its social value, its ranking on its Facebook page, its translation into Estonian), i.e. the dimension; and how we measure it if desired, - E58 Measurement Unit.
PS This discussion reminds me of a commercial advertising a credit card. It showed somebody buying a ring for the beloved one, paying the dinner with her, buying flowers, and ended saying that one can buy everything with the card, but romance has no price.
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
PIN - U. of Florence
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
Il giorno 21 feb 2018, alle ore 17:13, Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu<mailto:RSanderson at getty.edu>> ha scritto:
Definitely in favor of this. Linguistic Objects can have values. Appellations have values. Digital Images have values. Etc.
From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of "Carlisle, Philip" <Philip.Carlisle at HistoricEngland.org.uk<mailto:Philip.Carlisle at HistoricEngland.org.uk>>
Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 4:04 PM
To: "crm-sig (Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>)" <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>>
Subject: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90
Is there any reason why P90 has value could not/should not change its domain and range from:
E54 Dimension E60 Number
E1 CRM Entity E59 Primitive Value
I look forward to you answers
Knowledge Organization Specialist
Listing Group, Historic England
Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824
Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are valued for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do.
We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, and protect it for the future. Historic England is a public body, and we champion everyone’s heritage, across England.
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | Instagram Sign up to our newsletter
Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's remarkable story and its impact on the world. A History of England in 100 Places sponsored by Ecclesiastical.
We have moved! Our new London office is at 4th Floor, Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, London, EC4R 2YA.
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of Historic England unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic England may become publicly available.
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig