Issue 410: Layout of CIDOC CRM official version

Starting Date: 
2019-03-04
Working Group: 
1
Status: 
Proposed
Background: 

Posted by Martin on 4/3/2019

On the occasion  of the deprecated classes and properties as well as of the other CRM family models we should discuss how the various conceptual units appeared in the official CRM text should be presented. 

Posted by Christian Emil on 23/3/2019

I have read all the FOL expressions in the class and property definintion. I have added a comment for every correction/addition I have done in all 55. I have also done some other corrections. An important issue is the FOL describtion of E1 and E59. These classes don't have any superclasses and have a FOL description E1(x), E59(x). Since there is an implicit  universal quantifier this implies that all instances  of all classes are instances of E1 and E59.

Posted by Christian Emil on 24/3/2019

E1 CRM Entity and E59 Primitive Value are the only classes in CRM without a superclass. I assume we can imply from this that the two classes are disjoint.


In the CRMcore definintion the FOL descriptions are


E1 CRM Entity:

E1(x)


E59 Primitive Value:

E59(x)


The FOL descriptions in CRM are open expression with an implied universal quantifier. This is ok but not very  informative for E1(x) = "all x. E1(x)"  expresses the idea that everything we talk about are instanses of the universal class E1 CRM Entity.


The E59(x) = "all x.E59(x)" blurs the picture and indicate in a FOL description of CRM that everything is a primitive value.  It is ok to have the E59(x) as a predicate, but "all x.E59(x)"​ cannot be an axiom. We can solve this by removing the FOL description of E59.


Opinions?

Posted by Martin on 24/3/2019

Dear Christian-Emil,

Indeed it appears now that the Primitive Values are not as separate as initially conceived. Please check against the interpretations we give in the RDF implementation guidelines. On the other side, E59 instances do not have identifiers of their own as E1 instances have. But wrt the FOL description, Carlo should have an opinion

Posted by Christian Emil on 24/3/2019

Dear Martin, all,

An RDF interpretation of CRM is an implementation like any other implementation, for example  in a relational database formalism.  My impression has been that the FOL description should be authoritative in the sense that there has to be what we may call a mapping/implementation function from the FOL description to an implementation of CRM preserving the validity. ​ The FOL description should be carefully expressed. As it is now, iti s a valid statement in the FOL theory that every instance is a primitiv value.


Could you, please, give me a pointer to what is the current description of the implementation (interpretation)  of CRM in RDF?