Issue 317: Time Appellation
On 7/8/2016 Martin and Franco sent the following email to crm-sig
On 6/8/2016 8:10 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
> Franco's rule may be restated as follows, still avoiding too many negations:
> (R) A class MAY BE declared if, and only if, either or both of the following applies:
> (R1) it is required as the domain or range of a property inappropriate to its superclass, or
> (R2) it is a key concept in the practical scope
> In my original formulation it seemed that creating a class was compulsory if those conditions were verified, what of course is not the case: as you say, there may be other reasons not to start the process of new class creation.
Yes, working on that!
> Further rule refinements/amendments welcome, together with a sister rule for properties, where the trick of Typization (i.e. using the superclass with P2 has type) has the limits we all know, i.e. generates a “dot” property (P999.1) that requires reification for proper RDF treatment.
In the meanwhile, we have introduced an official RDFS version to formulate .1 properties, following Carlo's advice, with a "Typed Property Class" instead of E13. We'll announce (again?).
> Like! to most of your comments about Remain/Leave; still unsure about E48.
> Ashes on my head (Repent!!) for confusing E49 Time Appellation and Period names, probably misled by same confusion in the head of some archaeologists who use these names to “date” something. So for them “Early bronze age” means the time span "3300 to 2700 BC”. In their mind, it is also an E4 Period and a “culture”, whatever the latter may mean.
> Confusion, as wisely Gardin pointed out: but they are not guilty, CRM-wise, because according to the present
> E49 scope note it can be "all forms of names or codes, such as historical periods, and dates, which are characteristically used to refer to a specific E52 Time-Span”.
Thanks for the citation! This is an issue to be more precise!!
In the 41st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 34th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig examined this issue and decided that there is no discussion. The issue is closed.
Lyon, May 2018