Issue 636: update the list of property quantifiers

Starting Date: 
Working Group: 

Post by Wolfgang Schmidle (6 February 2023)

Dear All,

The list of property quantifiers in the introduction of the CIDOC CRM document is not up to date:

(1,1:0,1) and (1,n:1,n) should be added
(1,1:1,n) and (1,1:1,1) can be removed

Two changes are a result of the corrected property quantification mismatches, the other two are not.

Details are here:


Current Proposal: 

In the 56th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 &49th FRBR/LRMoo SIG, the SIG approved the proposal by WS to introduce the missing quantification definitions that are mentioned in the specification document. 

Arguments were made against deprecating property quantifications explanations that do not occur in the specification document.

  • The addition of new properties might result in reintroducing explanations of said property quantifications.
  • They also happen to appear in extensions –f.i. LRMoo uses (1,1:1,n)

The new property quantifications should make it in the community version (i.e. 7.2.3). Whether they also make it to the ISO version is up to PM & EC to decide. 


  • Also, based on the decision for issue 583 to introduce Sxx2 Relative Dimension and corresponding property Oxx6 is relative to (has relative dimension) in CRMsci v2.1, the SIG appointed MD & CEO to properly define the property quantifier used for Oxx6 is relative to in CRMsci and CRMbase -"many to many, necessary, two (2,n:0,n)”.  

Crete, May 2023

In the 58th CIDOC CRM & 51st FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, CEO gave an update on the issue: namely that the list of quantifiers and their readings has been properly defined in the introduction of the CRM. What remained to be done was to provide declarations for properties that require (at least) two instances of the domain/range classes (like O33 is relative to). After some thought, it was decided that this is a bit excessive (it could very well be that a property may require a different cardinality, let’s say “3,n:x,x”), and it would be counterintuitive to add as many property quantifier declarations, as there are restrictions. 
Proposal: CEO is to draft a generic statement that extends existing declarations based on requirements concerning the cardinality of domain/range instances of the properties, and submit it for an evote. The SIG agreed to that. Concerning the ER vs UML property quantification and what is the best/easiest way to represent property quantifiers, if people wish to change them, they should raise an issue about it where to discuss it.
Decision: proceed as suggested.

Paris, March 2024