Dear all, Please reply by yes or no to the proposal formally made at the 61st SIG meeting, namely to add the clause marked *in boldface* to the scope note of E13 Attribute Assignment. The reason that the group would not vote on it at the time, is that it was made at the meeting.
You have until the end of next week (23 January 2026) to vote on it. ++++++++++++++ E13 Attribute Assignment Subclass of: E7 Activity Superclass of: E14 Condition Assessment, E15 Identifier Assignment, E16 Measurement, E17 Type Assignment Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making assertions about one property of an object or any single relation between two items or concepts. *The property or relation does not have to be part of the CRM.* The type of the property asserted to hold between two items or concepts can be described by the property P177 assigned property of type (is type of property assigned): E55 Type. For example, the class describes the actions of people making propositions and statements during certain scientific/scholarly procedures, e.g., the person and date when a condition statement was made, an identifier was assigned, the museum object was measured, etc. Which kinds of such assignments and statements need to be documented explicitly in structures of a schema rather than free text, depends on whether this information should be accessible by structured queries. This class allows for the documentation of how the respective assignment came about, and whose opinion it was. Note that all instances of properties described in a knowledge base are the opinion of someone. Per default, they are the opinion of the team maintaining the knowledge base. This fact must not individually be registered for all instances of properties provided by the maintaining team, because it would result in an endless recursion of whose opinion was the description of an opinion. Therefore, the use of instances of E13 Attribute Assignment marks the fact that the maintaining team is in general neutral to the validity of the respective assertion, but registers someone else’s opinion and how it came about. All properties assigned in such an action can also be seen as directly relating the respective pair of items or concepts. Multiple use of instances of E13 Attribute Assignment may possibly lead to a collection of contradictory values. Examples: - the examination of MS Sinai Greek 418 by Nicholas Pickwoad in November 2003 (Honey & Pickwoad, 2010) - the assessment of the current ownership of Martin Doerr’s silver cup in February 1997 (fictitious) In first-order logic: E13(x) ⇒ E7(x) Properties: P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by): E1 CRM Entity P141 assigned (was assigned by): E1 CRM Entity P177 assigned property of type (is type of property assigned): E55 Type +++++++++++++ All the best, -- Eleni Tsouloucha Philologist - MA Linguistics & Language Technologies Center for Cultural Informatics Information Systems Laboratory - Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) Address: N. Plastira 100, GR-70013 Heraklion, Grece email: [email protected], [email protected] Tel: +30 2810391488
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
