Issue 447: A7 Embedding as a Physical Feature like entity

ID: 
447
Starting Date: 
2019-10-23
Status: 
Open
Background: 

In the 45th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 38th FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting and in the context of discussing issue 283 (superproperties to CRMarchaeo properties), and according to the decision reached in the 43rd meeting of the CIDOC-CRM sig, A7 Embedding should not be declared a temporal entity (previously adopted semantics for A7: isA E3 Condition State) but some sort of feature-like entity (like for instance S20 Rigid Physical Feature).

This decision has implications regarding the semantics of A7 as well as the properties linking it to other CRM classes (plus their superproperties).

Affected properties are:

  • AP17 is found by (found) [D: A7 Embedding; R: S19 Encounter Event]
  • AP18 is embedding of (is embedded) [D: A7 Embedding; R: E18 Physical Thing]
  • AP19 is embedding in (contains embedding) [[D: A7 Embedding; R: A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit]
  • AP20 is embedding at (contains) [D: A7 Embedding; R: E53 Place]
  • AP21 contains (is contained in) [D: A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit, R: E18 Physical Thing]
    [this one is a shortcut from the fully developed path:
    A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit -- AP19i contains embedding --> A7 Embedding -- AP18 is embedding of --> E18 Physical Thing
    hence any decision reached for A7 and affected properties AP18/19 will also affect AP21]

HW: CEO to edit A7 Embedding accordingly and also check properties AP17 through AP21 (check for consistency with newly postulated semantics for A7 and also determine their superproperties). This HW was not explicitly assigned over the 45th CRM sig meeting, but it was a pending decision from the 43rd meeting, and the HW had previously been assigned to CEO.

Heraklion, October 2019

Current Proposal: 

Posted by Christian Emil on 26/09/2020

I had a look into the issue 447 and compiled a memo in the google drive. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ECDet0Jis9IUPDDNK-7aHb-OjLqVolHJQTnhACG0Ko8/edit#

Here is an excerpt:

 

P186 produced thing of product type (is produced by): P186(x,y) ⊃ (∃z)[E24(z) ∧ P108(x,z) ∧  P2(z,y)]

 

The FOL states that if an instance of E12 Production produced  instances of a given (production)type then there existed at least one instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing which had that type.  The past tense in the label and the present tense in the scope note is a little confusing. The FOL implies that P186 states a completed fact and not an intention. 

P101 had as general use (was use of): P101(x,y) ⊃ (∃z)[E7(z) ∧ P16(z,x) ∧  P2(z,y)]

This corresponds to P186. Scope note: “This property associates an instance of E70 Thing with an instance of E55 Type describing its general usage.” The FOL requires that there must be at least one instance of E7 Activity of the given type  in which the instance of was used.  Therefore an unused object, say a baseball bat (as in the scope note) can never be connected to the type “had a general use for sport”. As for P125 , an instance of P101 documents observed completed facts and not intended general use. An unused coin in a numismatic collection (which is not infrequent)  cannot be linked to a “mean of payment” type via P101 or the unused baseball bat found in an attic cannot be connected to a “used in sport” type via P101.

 

Is this the intention?