[Crm-sig] RDFS, XML and more
azaroth42 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 10 00:08:26 EEST 2021
Thanks Martin :)
As Francesco asked and Thomas answered, I would also recommend a property
chain axiom that says:
If: x rdfs:label y
then: x P1_is_identified_by z ; z a E41_Appellation ,
P190_has_symbolic_content y .
I quickly defer to those who do OWL more often than I, but I think it's as
rdfs:label owl:propertyChainAxiom (crm:P1_is_identified_by,
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 4:18 PM Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> Sorry, I just forgot:
> Of course we can provide guidelines and S/W how to query all names etc.
> We can hardly forbid CRM users to put appellations into rdfs:label.
> So, how do this problem solved in OWL? Those of you opposing to the
> superproperty hack, how do you solve the query question?
> On 9/9/2021 11:12 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
> > Dear Robert, Mark,
> > Of course this is not elegant schema design. Unease is accepted, but
> > what are the alternatives??
> > On 9/9/2021 10:30 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> >> As expected, it entails the nonsense that the literal "fish"@en is an
> >> E1, E41, E90, etc. which is garbage caused by this pollution in the
> >> ontology, as literals cannot be the subject of triples.
> > This is, in my eyes, not nonsense, but simply reality. The literal
> > "fish" is used as a name. Hence it is ontologically an E41. Following
> > the definition of E90, "fish"@en is also symbolic object, regardless
> > whether one distinguishes data objects and literals. Note, that the
> > definitions of the CRM are ontological, not syntactic in the first place.
> > This is a classical problem of data integration, and why formal
> > ontologies were invented. Literature in the 1980ties discussed that
> > classes can be hidden in boolean values, strings, or be explicit
> > tables. There is an arbitrary decision of applications to name things
> > via labels, or via classes in RDF/OWL. SKOS exclusively names things
> > via labels.
> > So, if one makes a knowledge base that commits to the CRM, I would
> > like to have a query that returns all names in the whole world I can
> > reach, regardless what encoding variant and KR paradigm is used.
> > Otherwise, SKOS names will not be appellations.
> > Alternatively, we close our eyes, and hard code in data entry and
> > query that "fish" is used as Appellation, but just don't write it down.
> > @en actually is equivalent to "has language" etc. With these hidden
> > properties RDFS itself violates the separation of Literals and data
> > objects. It opens up a whole world of user-defined data objects
> > within Literals, with no logical connection to the data objects. This
> > is nothing than a bad later patch to a problem not initially
> > anticipated. How are these compatible with OWL reasoners?
> > There is no elegant solution to providing an ontology that describes a
> > reality based on FOL to fitting it exactly with Schema languages.
> > At least, this is how I perceive this problem, having seen enough
> > knowledge representation languages and information integration
> > literature from the eighties and implementations from the nineties on.
> > For me, the question is completely practical: We have a CRM compatible
> > KB, a real platform. What is the simplest form that I get all names in
> > the KB back? I have not seen a whole "RDF" world that my statement
> > label IsA P1 would turn upside down. Do you have one?
> > Best,
> > Martin
> >> Hope that helps explain my unease!
> >> Rob
> Dr. Martin Doerr
> Honorary Head of the
> Center for Cultural Informatics
> Information Systems Laboratory
> Institute of Computer Science
> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
> N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
> GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
> Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig