Dear all,
I follow the interesting discussion about E89 Propositional Object and
Symbolic Object, 'refer to' and 'is about'. This is a non trivial topic
and specially interesting for people with background in formal
philosophy or logic. That is ok for me since I have this background (set
theoretical models for higher order type theory).
The introduction of higher level philosophical concepts in the model
may make the model harder to understand for persons without special
training in and/or interest in formal logic. This worries me.
One of the major advantages of CRM is the possibility to use the object
oriented formalism to choose levels of granularity.
It may be so that it could be an idea to have a granularity dimension
also on the philosophical complexity, that is, a kind of popularisation
axis (without throwing out the nicely and concise defined baby with the
water)? This may also make it easier to formulate an operational
compatibility requirement. It may also make CRM easier to understand for
a larger number of museum/cultural heritage persons form whom it was
originally intended (I at least believe).
Regards
hristian-Emil
