Issue 614: Definition of I4 Proposition Set and what an instance of I2 Belief is about

Post by Martin Doerr (17 September 2023)

Dear All,

I made a mistake with the Issue number: The below message is actually a proposal for issue 614! So far, it has been formulated as:
 

"Some ideas:

• An Attribute Assignment essentially talks about a single property instance, which forms a parallel to pointing to a named graph that contains one property instance. 
• I1 Argumentation which results in an instance of I2 Belief cannot be a subclass of E13.
• There is also a problem with S4 Observation if the reification construct deals with more than one property simultaneously (what is now referred to as Situation). 
• The CRM set of properties that are equivalent to a named graph can be represented as a set of propositions and the connection between them in FOL. One can always name that and say that the predicate “X” stands for a proposition, in CRM an instance of E89. On the other hand, the scope note of I4 Proposition Set explicitly refers to binary propositions and formal ontology concepts, which seems too restrictive. Logical constructs do not specify the order or mode of the logical system the statements are expressed in. This could yield propositions that are incompatible with the CRM. The scope note needs redrafting.
• The idea is that CRMinf can be connected to a CRM compatible knowledge base through such statements. As CRMinf stands now, it seems that many things that we regard as premises and conclusions won’t be formulated in properties that have been defined in a formal ontology. In general, the scope of CRMinf should be broader than what can now be expressed. The reference to name graphs should explicitly only leave room for named graphs that contain 1+ property instances only (rather than instances of properties and classes or just the one property instance permitted by E13). 
• If there is any formalization in FOL that can be used to declare the E13 reification of a single property as a specific case of a named graph, it would be interesting to look at it. "

I hence reformulate:

1. We need a connection of an I4 Proposition Set (represented in a KB via a URI) to a content model.
2. If we follow the logic of P190, we can connect the proposition set to a materialized copy of an information object. The latter, in contrast to P190, will not be interpreted as representing an immaterial symbolic form of a certain symbolic level, but as representing an immaterial propositional form (see examples for E89 Propositional Object). This requires the latter to be either a set of statements in a KR language, OR in sufficiently unambiguous textual form (in the context and for the purpose of reference).
3. We need 3 kinds of links: To E52 String, to a symbolic object, and to an external file, be it in RDF or clear text.

• I propose "Jxx1,2,3 has model representation (represents model of): E52 String / E73 Information Object / E24 Human-Made Feature 
  • Jxx2 would be used for KR file contents, but also unambiguous texts, (P2 has type, such as “the Nebra Sky Disc dates to the Early Bronze Age” (Pernicka et al. 2020)"). Ontologically, the  "{}" connecting a URI in TRIG with a Named Graph corresponds to the Jxx2 link.
  • Jxx3 may point to a URL or archival identifier. Jxx3 is a shortcut of Jxx2 - Pxxx has representative copy.

An instance of I4 Proposition Set should be regarded to be neutral to the relationship to reality, as any Information Object. The relationship to reality is determined by the link using the proposition set: 

1. In the context of I2 Belief, the belief value of "TRUE" means "real", if the propositions can be related to reality (i.e., are about real world items). "FALSE" means at least one of the propositions in the set are regarded to be not real. NOTE that in a set of inconsistent propositions, the false one may not be known! Belief values expressing possibility or probability mean "possibly real" if the propositions can be related to reality.
2. In the context of observable situations, the link between the observation activity and the situation implies the degree of reality assumed. It makes sense to observe that a situation did not hold (in its specified area and time).
3. Only proposition set held to be true by the maintainers of a KB can be introduced as Named Graphs, because they become part of the stated knowledge.
4. Proposition Sets held to be possibly true by the maintainers of a KB can be introduced as Named Graphs, if the operation of the KB foresees filtering by provenance and likelihood. In this case, Named Graphs are  particularly effective.
5. implementation rule/ constraints for typing Named Graph URIs are required.
6. Finally, observing or assigning a single property (E13) can be described as a shortcut to a content model held to be true....

I propose to decide, if this is the way to go forward, and then

• Spell out the properties
• Adjust scope notes of I4, Observation etc.
• write the FOL connection between single property assignment and I4.

Best,

Martin