Issue 357: FOL representation for shortcuts

Starting Date: 
Working Group: 

Closing the issue 276, the sig  assigned HW to CEO to check all shortcuts FOL formulation.

Heraklion, October 2018

posted by CEO on 10/1/2018


Dear all

I searched for 'shortcut, and picked out all property definition containing the term. The attached file contains all these. Of course, not all contain shortcut defintions,  but I have kept them in the file for reference. For the properties being defined as short cuts, I have added a FOL-definition and also done som minor corrections in the scope note.

I have formulated the FOL descriptions as definintions:

P8(x,y) ≡ ($z)[E53(z) ˄ P7(x,z) ˄ P156(y,z)] 

By doing so I have assumed that all the short cuts are strong, which they are with a few exceptions, for example

P7(x,y) ≡ ($z)[ E2(x)  ∧  E53(z) ∧ P161(x,z) ˄ P89(z,y)]

 Since P161 has a superclass of E4 Period as domain, we have to add the E2(x) clause to ensure implication from right to left. If the clause is dropped the shortcut is  of the ? type in (not strong, not weak). 

Current Proposal: 

In the 41st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 34th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, CEO has been assigned with checking all shortcuts FOL formulation.

Lyon, May 2018


Reference to Issues: