Posted by Martin on 25/1/2020
Dear All,
I propose for
had as general use (was use of) |
E70 Thing |
E55 Type |
|
|
was intended for (was intention of) |
E71 Human-Made Thing |
E55 Type |
|
used object of type (was type of object used in) |
E7 Activity |
E55 Type |
|
|
- - used specific technique (was used by) |
E11 Modification |
E29 Design or Procedure |
|
P186 |
produced thing of product type (is produced by) |
E12 Production |
E99 Product Type |
|
had specific purpose (was purpose of) |
E7 Activity |
E5 Event |
|
|
had general purpose (was purpose of) |
E7 Activity |
E55 Type |
|
|
- used specific object (was used for) |
E7 Activity |
E70 Thing |
|
|
- used general technique (was technique of) |
E7 Activity |
E55 Type |
|
|
- - has produced (was produced by) |
E12 Production |
E24 Physical Human-Made Thing |
These new FOL axioms:
P125(x,y) ³ ($z)[E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z) ∧ P2(z,y)]
P32((x,y) ³ ($z)[E29(z) ∧ P33(x,z) ∧ P2(z,y)]
P186(x,y) ³ ($z)[E24(z) ∧ P108(x,z) ∧ P2(z,y)]
P101(x,y) ³ ($z)[E7(z) ∧ P16(z,x) ∧ P2(z,y)]
In the 46th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 39th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; the sig reviewed the HW by MD on the FOL axioms proposed by MD and did some editing. The following axioms were accepted
P125(x,y) iff (∃z)[E70(z) ∧ P16(x,z) ∧ P2(z,y)]
P186(x,y) ³ (∃z)[E24(z) ∧ P108(x,z) ∧ P2(z,y)]
P101(x,y) ³ (∃z)[E7(z) ∧ P16(z,x) ∧ P2(z,y)]
The axiom for P32 cannot be inferred, so it was dropped.
While discussing the inference for P101, the sig decided to start a new issue to change the scope of P101 in order to reflect the axiom above. The new issue must also cover the use of the terms General and Speccific, in all the labels where they appear and eradicate all ambiguities related to these terms.
The issue closed.
Athens, February 2020