Issue 321: BP11.2 Connected through
Trying to describe the fact that two rooms may be connected through a door or through a corridor, the following properties are appeared in tne new version CRMba 1.4
BP11 is connected to
Domain: B2 Morphological Building Section
Range: B2 Morphological Building Section
Quantification: one to many (0,n:0,1)
Scope note: This property identifies the instance of B2 Morphological Building Section which is connected to another instance of B2 Morphological Building Section. The instance of E24 Physical Man Made Thing through which the connection between the two instances of B2 Morphological Building Section is made, can be recorded using the property BP11.2 is connected through.
Examples: The great hall (B2) is connected to the sacristy (B2).
Properties: BP11.1 in the mode of: E55 Type
BP11.2 is connected through
Domain: BP11 is connected to
Range: E24 Physical Man Made Thing
Quantification: one to many (0,n:0,1)
Scope note: This property identifies the instance of E24 Physical Man Made Thing through which the connection between the two instances of B2 Morphological Building Section is made.
Examples: The great hall (B2) is connected to (B11) the sacristy (B2) is connected through the corridor (E24).
any comments or suggestions?
In the 37th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 30th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, after discussion, the crm-sig decided that the relations are useful, but the scope note should make clear the type of connection. It would seem that the connection intended is to pass through. If this is the intention, then it this would change the domain/range specification. It is the only the empty sections that are connected (you can’t walk through a wall).
Also it should be investigated the connectivity for liquid/air/water/sound/light/smell could be an issue for modelling in future
About 11.2 : It should be clarified transitivity properties and 11.2 should be replaced by transitivity rules, to resolve this it might be needed to be considered How are openings modelled? Door as opening, corridor as empty space e.g. Room A connected to Corridor B connected to Room C
The crm-sig assigned to George Bruseker to talk to Paola in order to reformulate it.
Berlin, December 2016
Posted by George on 1/4/2017
At the last SIG, the proposals for modelling connection were discussed. As can be seen in the comments below, the usefulness of the properties was clear to everyone, but there were two main concerns.
1) That in fact it is not the filled part of a building part that is connected to another, but rather that at least the connecting element and probably the connected elements must themselves be empty. Therefore one change proposed would be to change the domain and the range of the connected objects to B4 Empty Morphological Building Section. This would also be the range of the property on a property. What do you think of that change, does it make sense to you?
2) The definition of the kind of connection was the other concern. Connection is of course a rather broad concept. Here the focus seems to be on the ability to pass through one element to another. Then the question begins to open, aside from letting people move from a to be could you want to model that air or light or gas or water were enabled to pass from A to B.
So, I realize we discussed this before the SIG and I was not so critical. Here are my reflections post SIG discussion. If, we accept that it is the case that it is B4s that are connected through B4s I wonder if we can do the following instead:
This property identifies the instance of B4 Empty Morphological Building Section which is connected to another instance of B4 Empty Morphological Building Section, connecting the latter to the former. Connection here intends some sort of allowance or passage of an instance of E18 Physical Thing through the one B4 to the other. The manner of passage enabled between these two instances is further specified in BP11.2.
This is not a final proposal, but I share the idea with you to see if to you it makes sense or if you can think of problems with the proposal or a defence of the original proposal.
Posted by Paola Ronzino on 3/4/2017
Thank you very much for the formulation of the new scope note and sorry for not being able to reply earlier. Although I was on maternity leave I was very busy in submitting a deliverable for Parthenos and the final reporting of ARIADNE.
Coming back to connection I agree that only empty parts of the building are connected (i.e. the empty space of the two adjacent rooms and not the walls) through another empty space (the door or a corridor), the connection way being specified by BP11.2.
Therefore I agree with your scope note and I kindly ask you to represents my thoughts to the SIG. I hope next time to be able to attend the meeting :-)
Greeting to everybody attending the meeting.