Issue 672: Quantifiers of P140, P141, P177

Post by Martin (24 January 2024) 

Dear All,

I remember a discussion about the quantifiers of P140, P141, assigns attribute...

As it stands now, they are both
"many to many (0,n:0,n)".

P177 assigned property of type, has 

"many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n)"

Firstly, all must be necessary. you cannot assign a property type without a domain and range.

Secondly, the scope notes of all these properties do use singular, "the":

"This property associates an instance of E13 Attribute Assignment with the type of property or relation that this assignment maintains to hold between the item to which it assigns an attribute and the attribute itself"

Thirdly, multiple values confuse which is which.

I remember a discussion that, theoretically, if you have:

a) one domain, one type, many ranges

b) many domains, one type, one range

c) one domain, many types, one range,

The propositions are well defined. I assume that this discussion was never ended, nor such constraints be formulated in Logic. I doubt it can be in FOL, and is, for any user, utterly confusing.

The quantifiers must be: "many to one, necessary (1,1:0,n)"

Generalizing single property assigments for ISSUE 602, this must be resolved.

best,

Martin

Comment by Martin Doerr (19 March 2024)

On a second thought: "deassigned" should not be subproperty of P14 co1. It violates (1,1: 0,n), isn't it?

In the 58th CIDOC CRM SIG & 51st FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, the SIG reviewed the proposal by MD to change the quantification of P140, P141 from “many to many (0,n:0,n)” and P177 from “many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n)”, to “many to one, necessary (1,1:0,n)”.

CEO checked the quantifiers of their subproperties and marked the ones that need to be altered to match the “many to one, necessary (1,1:0,n)” requirement (namely P34, P35, P37, P38, P40, P42), because the semantics of a property cannot be more restrictive than the semantics of its subproperties.

• Since the quantification of P35 is (1,n:0,n), then it may exist P37(a,b) and P37(a,c) and b is not c. (if not the quantification should be (1,1:0,n). From the subproperty definition P37(a,b) ⇒ P141(a,b) and P37(a,c) ⇒ P141(a,c) so we can conclude that P141(a,b) and P141(a,c) which contradicts the proposed quantification (1,1:0,n) of P141.
• The scope notes would not have to be altered, as the range instances of the property are explicitly mentioned in the singular form.

Discussion points: 

Especially for P35 and P40, “many to one, necessary (1,1:0,n)” means that: 

• one cannot have one instance of E14 Condition Assessment that concerned multiple instances of E18 Physical Things (so one cannot group items assessed by one group assessment); rather they would have to create a super-activity consisting of multiple E14s, each for one item only.
• one cannot have one instance of E16 Measurement that assigned multiple dimensions to the measured thing; again, they would have to create a super-activity consisting of multiple E16s to do that. 
  • This will have implications for the S25 Relative Dimension construct in sci.

Decision: 
Bring this to MDs attention. Either disengage the subproperties from P140 and P141 to allow them less restrictive semantics, or go for the “many to one, necessary (1,1:0,n)” and configure the implications necessary for the semantics of the subproperties.

Paris, March 2024