Dear Martin, dear all,
if the attached text is supposed to be a replacement of the text on
pp. xi and xii of the CRM document (v. 4.2.4), I maintain that it is
not technically mature to be voted on as a whole.
A possibility would be to vote on each section separately, because in
my opinion there are a few items which require clarification and
discussion.
I would like to remark in general that we should agree whether the
introduction of the CRM document should be methodological or technical
or both. If both, methodological and technical arguments should not
be mixed up, as e.g. in section 1. There may be issues for or against
which methodological justifications may be given, and there my be also
reasons why something is unfeasible or inappropriate on a technical
level, but one should not eliminate the other one. And there is
common practice in some area; whether it should be taken up in a
positivistic way without asking for good reasons or whether it could
be improved is a matter of discussion ("Why are we doing things in
this way? Well, because we used to it all the time"...).
Another remark with a sideview on Christian-Emil's recent mails on
"dissemination" (and others) is to ask whether the text has become
easier to comprehend by practitioners. Before including the text
perhaps some museum people should be asked whether and how they
understand it.
Here are some comments on details:
Section 1: No principled objection beyond the remark above. As for
the last sentence, I don't see in which way "this interpretation
allows for describing the history of a term..." If you mean by that
that it does not prohibit it, well, yes. My interpretation of this
sentence is that you would like to attach a time stamp to a term,
i.e. in philology (e.g., in a TEI application) "edition:Lachmann",
i.e. "edition" in the understanding of Lachmann in the 19th century
--- which makes perfect sense. Or is it more, and if so, what,
please?
Section 2: "... provides two basic properties": What is the second one?
I see only P2; is the second one the inverse relation (is type of)?
Section 5: "good"? As opposed to bad thesauri? Wouldn't it be better
to say: "Generally, thesauri are organized in
generalization-specialization hierarchies, ..." Nevertheless, I have
problems to understand the third sentence: how do those properties
"support" a "limited form of reasoning" --- what is "limited", which
kind of reasoning? Do you mean subsumption? And what are "suitable
queries"? Queries to whom?
Section 8: "Finally, ..." well, do we need such universal statements?
And, honestly, I think metaphysical claims as "physical evidence of
types" are dispensable. In sentence 2 I see a singular/plural problem
("is declared as A subclass ... to their (?) structural role ...").
Section 9: I don't understand it at all. Could you please explain ---
and perhaps also the colleagues who already voted for the text as a
whole what they understand? As a side remark, I cannot make any sense
out of the last sentence.
Best,
-- Guenther
On 6/4/08, martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Following the decision in the last meeting, we have to decide via e-mail
> vote on
> the updated attached text about types in the CRM document. I have
> desparately tried to
> describe as exact as possible what the CRM does, and to avoid the metaclass
> question, once this is a philosophical rather than an applied question in
> the
> current form the CRM describes.
>
> Please VOTE:
>
> ACCEPT [ ]
>
> REQUEST MODIFICATION: [....]
>
> by June 12.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
> --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
> Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
> | Email: [email protected] |
> |
> Center for Cultural Informatics |
> Information Systems Laboratory |
> Institute of Computer Science |
> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
> |
> Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
> |
> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>
