Post by Pat Riva (10 September 2024)
Finally, some overdue homework. LRMoo version 1.0 was issued without FOL due to running out of time. I have now put together a draft of the FOL for each class or property in a separate document. I could be totally wrong! And I put a list of questions on p.9, after the properties. Comments and corrections welcome.
Thanks,
Pat
In the 59th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 & 52nd FRBR/LRMoo SIG, Pat shared the file with the proposed FOL statements for LRMoo classes and properties for the SIG to review offline and offer feedback.
N.b. LRMoo v1.0 has been released without any FOL statements in it, and the group has been working towards providing them since.
The document can be accessed here. Anything marked in italics explicitly requires feedback.
Decision:
HW: CEO and WS will go through them and comment by the next SIG meeting.
Plovdiv, September 2024
Post by Pat Riva (31 March 2025)
Hello all,
I'm joining the last minute homework sharing with homework on issue 685, the LRMoo FOL statements that we first discussed in Plovdiv. Since then, Wolfgang Schmidle and Christian-Emil have very kindly reviewed everything closely.
And thus some issues were discovered that merit further discussion. Two relate to LRMoo itself, and others relate to which FOL conventions we prefer, particularly for more complex long path statements.
In this folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xZcKl2WQMfPJ1r1YXLUPXkl-JF-p5qe…
You will find the FOL document, with the comment threads, and also a powerpoint that summarizes the issues for discussion.
This is on the agenda for April 2.
See you soon,
Pat
In the 60th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 & 53rd FRBR/LRMoo SIG, PR walked the SIG through the problems with the FOL the LRMoo group and WS & CEO identified with the proposed FOL expressions for the LRMoo properties. The slide-deck of her presentation can be found here. The list of the proposed FOL can be found here.
The topics brought to the SIG’s attention involve:
- The full path that R8 combines is a shortcut of
- The full path that R36 uses script conversion is a shortcut of
- The inference concerning the dimension that an exemplar (F5 Item) of an F3 Manifestation can have
- The inference holding between a R78 has alternate and two instances of F3 Manifestation that R4 embody the same instance of F2 Expression
- The conventions used FOL expressions, namely:
-for declaring complex FOL axioms (and whether classes should be declared and in what style)
- Introducing a generic statement that disallows adding redundant FOL statements (if a property is asymmetric, then it is also irreflexive)
- Headers applied to shortcut properties and position thereof in property definitions
Cleaning-up the document, fixing typos etc. - The SIG agreed with PRs proposals, a summary of decisions can be found in the attached document.
A summary of decisions can be found here.
HW: CEO: add explanatory note (asymmetric ⇒ irreflexive) to CRM intro docs.
HW: PR will update LRMoo accordingly.
Bern, April 2025
Post by Pat Riva (6 October 2025)
Hello all,
There are two follow ups to issue 685.
First, I have integrated the agreed on FOL in a new version of LRMoo, version 1.1. The changes are detailed here. This version includes other editorial changes in addition to the ones resulting from the FOL integration.
Then, there was a pending issue about how to make a shortcut for R8 combines between two nomens. Maja, Trond and I have thought a bit further about the plan at the last SIG in Bern to create a new property (linking F12 to E41 so that P106 can be used in the shortcut). We think there might be an alternative approach that would require redefining R33 has string to a property with range E90 Symbolic Object, instead of range E62.
These options discussed in these slides.
These documents are all found, along with the previous ones on this issue, in this directory (from last SIG).
In addition to these topics, during the session on LRMoo, we will continue the discussion of serials in LRMoo started in Plovdiv, discuss its relationship with PRESSoo, and introduce the new topic of integrating resources.
As always, any comments welcome.
Pat
Post by Wolfgang Schmidle (14 October 2025)
Dear Pat,
I am looking forward to discussing the two options! Some preliminary notes are here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i_Ue84JCal4E0eaUxwoBEVi-0jcGkRdzWaECek3zBcs/edit
Best,
Wolfgang
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (15 October 2025)
|
asymmetric
|
Asymmetric is defined in the standard way found in mathematics or logic: A property is asymmetric if the domain and the range are the same class and for all instances of x, y of this class, the following is the case: If x is related by P to y, then y is not related by P to x. An example of an asymmetric property is E18 Physical Thing. P46 is composed of (forms part of): E18 Physical Thing.
|
|
reflexive
|
Reflexive is defined in the standard way found in mathematics or logic: A property P is reflexive if the domain and range are the same class and for all instances x, of this class the following is the case: x is related by P to itself. The intention of a property as described in the scope note will decide whether a property is reflexive or not. An example of a reflexive property is E53 Place. P89 falls within (contains): E53 Place.
|
|
irreflexive
|
Irreflexivity is defined in the standard way found in mathematics or logic: A property P is irreflexive if the domain and range are the same class and for all instances x of this class, the following is the case: x is not related by P to itself. An example of an irreflexive property is E33 Linguistic Object. P73 has translation (is translation of): E33 Linguistic Object.
P is asymmetric implies that P is irreflexive: Assume that P is asymmetric then for all x,y: P(x,y) implies not P(y,x). So P(x,x) will imply not P(x,x) which is a contradiction and P(x,x) cannot be the case.
|