Issue 461: Attribute Assignment of .1 properties
Posted by Robert Sanderson on 3/12/2019
Dear all,
With the addition of P177 assigned property type, we can associate a relationship with an Attribute Assignment. This is wonderful, as it lets us be clear about the relationship that the attribute assignment is expressing.
However, some properties are 3-tuples, as expressed in the first order logic, with a .1 property that qualifies the relationship further. We currently cannot add the qualifier to the attribute assignment when using a property that allows these, and to be able to do so would be very beneficial.
To project the example of P14 into an Attribute Assignment:
Example:
The painting of the Sistene Chapel (E7) was carried out by Michaelangelo Buonaroti (E21) in the role of master craftsman (E55).
A very typical attribution of which most organizations have many instances.
An Attribute Assignment could look like:
<aa1> a E13_Attribute_Assignment ;
P140_assigned_attribute_to [
a E7 Activity ;
rdfs:label “Painting of the Sistene Chapel Activity” ] ;
P141_assigned [
a E21_Person ;
rdfs:label “Michaelangelo Buonaroti” ] ;
P177_assigned_property_type <P14_carried_out_by> ;
Pxxx_assigned_property_of_property_type [
a E55_Type ;
rdfs:label “master craftsman” ] .
Or some other less verbose name for the new property.
Many thanks for your consideration, fellow SIG-folks.
In the 48th CIDOC CRM and 41st FRBR CRM sig meeting (virtual), the sig discussed about adding qualifiers to the attribute assignment when using a property that allows these, and which would be very beneficial and assigned to MD and RS to write a short text to describe the alternatives for assigning .1 properties and discuss materialization of the referred property.
October 2020
In the 53rd CIDOC CRM & 46th FRBRoo SIG meeting, the SIG reassigned the HW to RS and MD. It is about adding a qualifier to an attribute assignment. Postpone the issue, until HW has been turned in.
HW: MD, RS
May 2022
In the 57th CIDOC CRM & 50th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, GB brought the SIG up to speed with the problem that P177 assigned property type failed to resolve -namely that it was meant to allow for an instance of E13 Attribute Assignment construct to link an instance of E1 CRM Entity (that the E13 was about) with some other thing, and the content of the attribution that concerned the E1 in question.
It turned out that there are .1 properties involved in the assigned properties, for instance “in the role of” could not be accommodated in the structures allowed now. The issue aimed at discussing the means to provide the now missing .1 qualification.
Discussion:
Since E13 can assign more than one property between a domain and a range at the same time, there is no way to tell which property we’re talking about. The scope note should probably change to only allow one property assignment per E13. The quantification should change, and the scope note should reflect that.
Decisions:
HW: CEO, SdS and WS to propose:
- diagrams sketching the proposal to assign one property per E13 instance (as opposed to the alternative for assigning multiple propositions at once, which could be handled through CRMinf),
- property quantification that allows only one property assignment per E13
- a scope note alteration in P177 that reflects the statement above
Marseille, October 2023