Issue 163: Super property of R10

ID: 
163
Starting Date: 
2008-05-13
Working Group: 
4
Status: 
Done
Closing Date: 
2008-05-13
Background: 

Dear All,

The R10 property has the following definition:

R10 is example of (has example)

Domain: F5 Item
Range:

F3 Manifestation Product Type
Subproperty of: P2 has type

According CIDOC CRM document, "the intension of the subproperty extends the intension of the superproperty, i.e. its traits are more restrictive than that of its superproperty"

To be a "example" is not a "more restrictive" case of to be a "type". I think the most appropriate CIDOC CRM superproperty for R10
should be:

P137: is exemplified by (exemplifies)

Domain: E55 Type
Range: E1 CRM Entity.

So, to align the subproperty intension with the superproperty intension, I think it's necessary to redefine (invert Range/Domain) R10:

R10 has example (is example of)

Domain: F3 Manifestation Product Type
Range:

F5 Item
Subproperty of: P137 is exemplified by (exemplifies)

Now, 
F3 Manifestation Product Type F5 Item
is a specific case of
E55 Type E1 CRM Entity.Joao Lima

Dear All,

In fact, each property (R10, P137, etc.)
could be treated as a couple : R10F(orward) and R10B(ackward) or P137F and P137B.

Maybe, the issue is in the order of property names.

"is example of #R10F# (has example) #R10B#" and

"is exemplified by #P137F# (exemplifies) #P137B#"

and property hierarchy:

R10F Subproperty of P137B

R10B Subproperty of P137F

looks normal.

 

Or, we could imagine inverse order:

"is example of #R10F# (has example) #R10B#" and

"is exemplified by #P137B# (exemplifies) #P137F#" .

and correspond property hierarchy.

As for the first part of the letter, we could apply a simple test:

To be _an example of_ someting is to _have type_ of something

isn't it?

Best,

Vladimir.

Current Proposal: 

Actually the domain - range restriction of R10 to F3, F5 is the kind of intension change that justifies the subproperty. If you may interpret the label "has type" and "example" as synonymous, has no relevance. Labels are only mnemonics. Note, that the CRM is not a dictionary that would explain the meaning of English words or expressions.

Domain and Range of properties are part of their intension. Beyond that, only the scope note matters.

Actually the link P137 should be declared as subproperty of P2. This needs inverting P137. This is an issue for the next meeting.

The notion of "exemplifying" in P137 is that of selecting ONE instance to be a particularly good representative. This is not the sense of R10, but similar to the "representative assignment" in FRBRoo, which we put now in an Annex of the document.

Outcome: 

P2 has type (is type of)

Domain: E1 CRM Entity
Range:

E55 Type
Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n)
Superproperty of: E1 CRM Entity. P137 exemplifies (is exemplified by) : E55 Type
Scope note:

This property allows sub typing of CRM entities - a form of specialisation through the use of a terminological hierarchy, or thesaurus.

The CRM is intended to focus on the high-level entities and relationships needed to describe data structures. Consequently, it does not specialise entities any further than is required for this immediate purpose. However, entities in the isA hierarchy of the CRM may by specialised into any number of sub entities, which can be defined in the E55 Type hierarchy. E51 Contact Point, for example, may be specialised into e-mail address, telephone number, post office box, URL etc. none of which figures explicitly in the CRM hierarchy. Sub typing obviously requires consistency between the meaning of the terms assigned and the more general intent of the CRM entity in question.
Examples:

 

P137 exemplifies (is exemplified by) 

Domain: E1 CRM Entity
Range:

E55 Type
Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n)
subproperty of: E1 CRM Entity. P2 has type: E55 Type
Scope note:

This property allows an item to be declared as a particular example of an E55 Type or taxon.

The P137.1 in the taxonomic role property of P137 exemplifies (is exemplified by) allows differentiation of taxonomic roles. The taxonomic role renders the specific relationship of this example to the Type, such as "prototypical", "archetypical", "lectotype", etc. The taxonomic role "lectotype" is not associated with the Type Creation (E83) itself, but selected in a later phase.
Examples: Object BM000098044 of the Clayton Herbarium (E20) exemplifies Spigelia marilandica (L.) L. (E55) in the taxonomic role lectotype
Properties:  P137.1 in the taxonomic role: E55 Type

 

Heraklion, May 2008