Issue 610: Deprecate Typed Properties in CIDOC CRM?

ID:

610

Starting Date:

2022-10-13

Working Group:

Status:

Done

Background:

In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, upon discussing the presentation by Thanasis Velios on Typed and Negative Typed Properties, the SIG resolved to start a new issue, where to discuss the possibility of systematically deprecating typed properties in CIDOC CRM. The issue relates to 476 and the proposal to deprecate P199, found in the 7.2.x branch of the CIDOC CRM releases.

Discussion points:

Systematic deprecation of TPs will require some consideration: most of them are used frequently. Should also consider the possibility of treating inverse properties as TPs.
Existing CRM properties can be treated with a same as statement as the TPs? TPs do not anything in terms of the semantics of the CRM. It is not an extension so that’s not the way to go about it.
The construct is useful for CRMarcheao (finding or not finding bones in a grave that one has dug up). The aim is that this technical solution can become an extension. It contains around 60 TPs and some of them are derived negative properties (to the extent that it makes sense semantically to implement each NTP).
The semantics of NTPs needs to be addressed. A thing to take into consideration is the ambiguity of the temporal characteristics of the properties. That something is missing at the time of examination/documentation means that it was never there or that it got removed at some point in time? F.i., is it the case that there exist no remnants of a book-marker at the time of the examination/conservation or was there never a book-marker in a particular book? In general, if there is evidence that something had been there at a prior stage, then it would be classified as having existed.

HW: Martin Doerr, Thanasis Velios to examine the properties for temporal ambiguities

HW: Thanasis Velios to assess whether inverse shortcut properties can express TPs

Outcome:

In the 55th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 48th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting, TV gave an outline of the issue and the 3 subtopics that needed to be addressed, namely:

Whether to deprecate existing typed properties in CRM base: P125 used object of type is the only other instance of a TP found in the CRM.
Proposal not to deprecate it, because it has been used in multiple implementations.
Decision: the SIG voted to keep P125 in the model

Whether the CRM inverse properties can be typed properties:
- TV reported that in principle there shouldn’t be any TPs in inverse paths, because inverse paths do not conform to the overall pattern (s → p → o) (o → p2 → t).
  - MD has done some relevant work (meta-CRM) in the past and thinks that there may be some still in the inverse properties. He is going to take up HW on that, together with TV. To be dealt with in a new issue (632).
- P32 used general technique IsA P125, which itself stands as a shortcut for E7. P16: E70. P2: E55. There is no registered instance of a technique over which this is shortcutting. Is the subproperty still valid if there is no instance of technique?
  - Make this a part about the inheritance of strong vs weak shortcuts. To be discussed in a new issue (633).
    HW: For MD, WS, CEO and TV to fully flesh out.

Considerations of the temporal validity of negative types properties, i.e. for what period the closed world exists.

MD presented 3 competing views on the temporal validity of NTPs –namely their temporal validity interpreted as (i) eternal, (ii) continuous from a point on in time, (iii) continuous in relation to a period of observation –and made the argument in favor of (iii) being the safest option in terms of reasoning.

Discussion points:
For interpretation (i): there are cases that one can safely claim for something not being present that it never has been or never will be present (i.e., in a medieval manuscript that had never had leafmarks on it, it would be weird to claim that it is possible to add leafmarks to it in the current age, or at some later stage).

The analysis by MD is relevant for issue 609 (under which it was originally posted). No effect on implementing NTPs for RDFS.
Way to move forward: MD, SdS, TV, PF, WS to discuss the temporal validity of NTPs (and overall Ps). Inform 609 with this decision.

Summary of decisions: