Relation between instantiations of single records and their record sets

[Hope, Aaron (MPBSDP)]

Good afternoon RiC Users,

 

I’m having a little difficulty figuring out how to model the relationship between particular instantiations of single records and the record sets to which they belong. In my scenario, a single record (a letter) has, through time, been part of at least three record sets. The record has two known instantiations, the original handwritten document created in 1939 and a photocopy made ca. 1994. I have no trouble describing the two instantiations of the record, the relationship between them (using “has Or Had Derived Instantiation”), their production techniques etc. I also have no problem describing the single record as belonging to the three record sets (using “is Directly Included In”). However, I am not sure how best to indicate which particular instantiation belongs to which particular record set. Is it possible to link an instantiation of a single record to a record set? I already have an instantiation of the record sets as a whole (e.g. “1 file of textual records (4 letters)”). If not, how can I clearly show that the photocopy pertains to one record set and the original handwritten letter belongs to another?

 

If it helps, here is a visualisation of the situation (record sets in red, record in blue, instantiations in violet):

 

 

 

Many thanks!

Aaron Hope

 

 

[Florence Clavaud]

Hi Aaron,

As an Instantiation is not a Record Resource, it should not be described as belonging to a Record Set by itself. But you can assert that each of the two instantiations is part of (using https://www.ica.org/standards/RiC/ontology/isOrWasPartOf), or to be more precise, is component of (using https://www.ica.org/standards/RiC/ontology#isOrWasComponentOf)  an instantiation of a Record Set in which the Record instantiated is included.

I hope this helps.

That's something we have never thought of in the RiC-O development team till now, but, if it is needed, we could consider adding a property that  would link an instantiation of a record to the record set in such a case, and would also thus be a shortcut of isOrWasInstantiationOf/isOrWasIncludedIn (or something of the kind).

Best regards,

Florence Clavaud

Executive member of ICA/EGAD ; lead of RiC-O development team
head of the Lab, Archives nationales de France

[Hope, Aaron (MPBSDP)]

Many thanks Florence – the “is or was component of” instantiation relation solves my problem very well. In light of that relation, I’m not sure a new property that would link a record instantiation to a record set is needed, but perhaps there might be some applications.

 

Thanks again!

Aaron

 

From: records_in_c...@googlegroups.com <records_in_c...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Florence Clavaud
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 4:00 AM
To: Records_in_Contexts_users <records_in_c...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Records in Contexts users] Re: Relation between instantiations of single records and their record sets

 

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Records_in_Contexts_users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Records_in_Context...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/6fa9f828-4279-40f0-951a-cd4a9345751an%40googlegroups.com.

[Jochen Deprez]

Hello Aaron,

Correct me if i'm wrong, but according to the RiC-CM documentation, the RiC-R25 "has instantiation" and RiC-R25i "is instantiation of" relate Instantiations with Record Resources. I suppose this implies this relation can also be used for child Entities of Record Resource like Record Set and Record, like you're already doing by relating the Record with the Instantiation?

If so, then this should solve your question? Another question is, if this needs to be related at Record Set level at all. Doesn't a relation with a Record also imply a relation with the Record Set the Record is included in? Can a reasoner like Protégé or a graph interpret and derive this inexplicit relation?

Op do 15 mei 2025 om 10:00 schreef Florence Clavaud <florence...@culture.gouv.fr>:

--

[CLAVAUD Florence]

Hi Jochen,

As we designed it RiC-O (or RiC-CM), rico:hasOrHadInstantiation means that the whole content of the rico:RecordResource, whatever it is, is instantiated - else we should have specified that the instantiation can be partial. So this relation should not been used to connect a Record Resource to an Instantiation of another Record Resource included in that first Record Resource. It is true that we could probably make the definition more explicit as concerns this feature. I have noted this.

As concerns inferring a direct relation between an Instantiation of a Record, and the Record Set which includes this Record: as I said, such a property chain axiom does not exist in the ontology. Of course, you certainly, if you really need this, can write a rule or a SPARQL construct query, to infer such relations in a specific dataset from the longer path 'isOrWasInstantiationOf/isOrWasIncludedIn' (for now you could for example infer rico:isRelatedTo from this, as again, there is no dedicated object property of the kind in RiC-O).

Best regards,

Florence Clavaud

Executive member of ICA/EGAD ; lead of RiC-O development team
head of the Lab, Archives nationales de France

---

De : records_in_c...@googlegroups.com <records_in_c...@googlegroups.com> de la part de Jochen Deprez <deprez...@gmail.com>
Envoyé : jeudi 15 mai 2025 15:58
À : Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com <Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com>
Objet : Re: [Records in Contexts users] Re: Relation between instantiations of single records and their record sets

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/CAE3fQCy1KqHWyGx-FSmg1XtwZj-x-V_kwmOfyyow2EAemc9gzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

---

Merci de nous aider à préserver l'environnement en n'imprimant ce courriel et les documents joints que si nécessaire.

[Jochen Deprez]

Dear Florence,

Thank you for this clarification!

Op do 15 mei 2025 18:04 schreef CLAVAUD Florence <florence...@culture.gouv.fr>:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/PARP264MB58085564367322E94E3AD955D590A%40PARP264MB5808.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Hope, Aaron (MPBSDP)]

Hi Jochen,

I think you are technically right according to the letter of RiC-CM and RiC-O, which both have relations from Record Resources to Instantiations – but I see Florence has just clarified that it was not the intention to allow such relations where the instantiation is partial. This makes sense to me, since a single record cannot be the instantiation of a whole record set.

 

With regard to your second point, the difficulty there is that the record belongs to multiple record sets through time and thus there would be no way to know which record set has which instantiation simply through the implied relation you mention.

 

Thanks for your suggestion though – always interesting to consider the possibilities!

 

Aaron

 

From: records_in_c...@googlegroups.com <records_in_c...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jochen Deprez
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 9:59 AM
To: Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Records in Contexts users] Re: Relation between instantiations of single records and their record sets

 

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello Aaron,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/CAE3fQCy1KqHWyGx-FSmg1XtwZj-x-V_kwmOfyyow2EAemc9gzQ%40mail.gmail.com.