Posted by Martin Doer on 14/9/2018
Dear All,
I propose a new property of Symbolic Object : "has symbolic content : String" , in RDFS subproperty of rdfs:value.
The "level of symbolic specificity" by which the String is interpreted should conform to the type of the Symbolic Object.
Posted by Robert Sanderson on 17/9/2018
Thank you, Martin! I think this is exactly what we need ☺
Posted by Richard Light on 17/9/2018
Rob,
Absolutely. So now we need to draft the text to describe this property, in suitably generalized terms, for the CRM, and then update our RDF documentation to say exactly how it is to be used in that context. Perhaps we should start with some examples?
Posted by Robert Sanderson on 17/9/2018
Examples I have a lot of!
How about …
* The materials description (E33) of the painting (E22) _has symbolic content_ “Oil, French Watercolors on Paper, Graphite and Ink on Canvas, with an Oak frame.”
* The title (E35) of Einstein’s 1915 text (E73) _has symbolic content_ “Relativity, the Special and the General Theory“
* The story of Little Red Riding Hood (E33) _has symbolic content_ “Once upon a time there lived in a certain village …”
* The inscription (E34) on Rijksmuseum object SK-A-1601 (E22) _has symbolic content_ “B”
Posted by Nicola Carboni on 18/9/2018
Dear Martin,
I can confirm that having symbolic content as subclass of rdf:value would incredibly help!!
Posted by Richard Light on 18/9/2018
Right, so we are defining a new CRM property, with domain E90 Symbolic Object and range E62 String. Agreed? I suggest that we call it "Pxxx has string value" to make its purpose clearer.
E62 String is defined more widely than the strings we are currently considering: it includes "bitmaps, vector graphics, etc.". Is this a matter of concern? My own initial thought is that the scope note for Pxxx in the CRM document should be as generic as the definition of E62, so they are mutually compatible, something like:
This property contains the symbolic content of the Symbolic Object, expressed as an E62 String. The "level of symbolic specificity" by which the String is interpreted should conform to the type of the Symbolic Object.
Then we could have Rob's examples.
Once this simple property is in place in the CRM, we can update the RDF implementation guidelines to indicate that in the RDF environment we represent the E62 String values, which are the object of a Pxxx_has_string_value property/predicate, as a subclass of rdf:value.
Or ... maybe we might choose another RDF(S) property. I forget the details of our previous discussions, but there is rdfs:Literal and rdfs:langString, either of which we could use. Ideally, we should in general choose RDF implementations which conform nicely to our abstract distinction between E60 Number, E61 Time Primitive and E62 String.
I'm keen that we resolve the simple case of string values, because I think that will solve 90+% of our users' actual needs. However, I'm equally keen that we don't do it in a way which makes it harder to deal with bitmaps, graphics, and indeed more complex values such as measurements (e.g. 3' 6") in RDF.
Posted by Martin Doerr on 19/9/2018
Here my scope note:
Pxxx has symbolic content
Domain: E90 Symbolic Object
Range: E62 String
Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) ??
Scope note: This property associates an instance of E90 Symbolic Object with a complete, identifying representation of its content in the form of an instance of E62 String. This property only applies to instances of E90 Symbolic Object that can be represented completely in this form. The representation may be more specific than the symbolic level defining the identity condition of the represented. This depends on the type of the symbolic object represented. For instance, if a name has type "Modern Greek character sequence", it may be represented in a loss-free Latin transcription, meaning however the sequence of Greek letters. As another example, if the represented object has type "English words sequence", American English or British English spelling variants may be chosen to represent the English word "colour" without defining a different symbolic object. If a name has type "European traditional name", no particular string may define its content.
Examples:
* The materials description (E33) of the painting (E22) _has symbolic content_ “Oil, French Watercolors on Paper, Graphite and Ink on Canvas, with an Oak frame.”
* The title (E35) of Einstein’s 1915 text (E73) _has symbolic content_ “Relativity, the Special and the General Theory“
* The story of Little Red Riding Hood (E33) _has symbolic content_ “Once upon a time there lived in a certain village …”
* The inscription (E34) on Rijksmuseum object SK-A-1601 (E22) _has symbolic content_ “B”
Posted by Mark Fichtner on 20/9/2018
Dear all,
thanks for the proposal Martin. I think it should have some relation to P3 - probably it is a subproperty? Especially the examples really make it look like a subproperty to P3
In the 42nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 35th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, τhe scope note of the new property Pxxx has symbolic content given by MD was accepted as a working definition and underwent minor modifications, as can be seen below. The examples provided by RS were also accepted as felicitously describing the new property. Finally, RL was assigned with doing some editing and presenting the crm-sig with a new definition, during the Berlin 2018 meeting. The definition of this property may be found here.
Berlin, November 2018
In the 44th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 37th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, The sig accepted the scope note definition for P190 has symbolic content [D:E90 Symbolic Object, R:E62 String] (HW by MD). The entry for the property can be found here. The issue is closed.
Paris, June 2019