Issue 316: co-reference statements to CRMinf
In the 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig, reviewing the text provided by Øyvind about co reference between information systems as well as the proposed changes to the existing definition, decided to withdraw the co-reference statement from the text of CIDOC CRM 6.1 and assigned to Øyvind, CEO,MD, Arianna Ciula to revise the definition in order to introduce it to CRMinf.
Following the crm-sig decision about co reference statement in 32nd crm-sig meeting, Øyvind sent the following email on 4/5/2015
As a first step I have jotted down something about negation, in order to clarify if we can have one class for both positive and negative coref statements. My preliminary conclusion is that we cannot keep both as one class.
Thanks to Arianna who made some comments on an earlier draft that sharpened the argument, but no responsibility for the result.
I have it in a Google doc. It would be good if you were able to comment, criticise and develop further. I have shared it with anyone with a link.
I have also made a work plan for the coref work; mostly for myself but I am happy to have comments on that one too.
Posted by Oyvind on 19/5/2015
Please find proposals for new scope notes for a coref class, and in addition a non-coref class. The new scope note is an attempt to remove some of the complexity of the previous definition. The attached doc file shows the changes from the proposal presented in Oxford by traced changes.
In the 37th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 30th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig discussed about what is a reasonable formulation in describing a co reference statement with CRMinf. Oyvind, Dominic and MD will make a proposal about the belief states implied in describing a co-reference statement (and disbelief) up to the second half of January (related to Research Space implementation of CRMinf).
Berlin, December 2016
posted by Steve on 9/12/2016
... had a go at some properties to aid the compression of text use during belief adoption.
Hope they are the sort of thing you were looking for
In the 44th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 37th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the SIG reviewed this sleeping HW assignment (SS). Reaffirmed the need for this work.
Updated the proposed HW with changes from LRMoo. SS explained that this was a partial HW. It must be aligned in consideration with I9 Provenanced Comprehension. Need also to take into account the Non-Coference Statement.
DECISION: Out of the proposed properties Jx3 used (was used by) [D: I7 Belief Adoption, R: F4 Manifestation Singleton] will be deleted, given that its range has been deprecated. The other two properties are listed here.
Paris, June 2019
Post by Martin Doerr (15 September 2023)
As Belief Adoption has completely be redesigned, the previous proposals would interfere with the current solution. Also, I think a coreference statement should be a form of intended meaning belief primarily, saying that several propositions in different sources or at different places in the same source refer to one item, identified by one URI. This means that we belief that the author or authors meant one real item, whatever it was. Therefore we would need a sort of mark-up or so to the text passages, and one URI for this assumed real world existence. The question is, if we need a construct "identified as whatever was meant by the author at xxx" to assign an identity to a URI with such a reservation wrt to other known items.
Another question would be a "possibly same" statement between two URIs, or possibly not same.
In the 57th CIDOC CRM & 50th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, the SIG reviewed MDs proposal to determine a modelling construct or guideline concerning "whatever author x meant by text y" and to assgn a URI to its real-world referent (to be associated with the intended meaning of y).
HW: PF, MD, AG (can provide material), AK, SdS (to proofread) to determine whether this relationship requires a link btw classes or if it only takes a guideline to express. And how to specify that the identity of a URI, is restricted to what it originally stood for.
details of the proposal & ensuing discussion here
Marseille, October 2023