I also like this Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail [email protected]
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of martin Sent: 22 October 2008 12:14 To: Christian-Emil Ore Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note for E55 Type I absolutely like that. Now we need a new version of the introductory text on Types. Martin Christian-Emil Ore wrote: > Dear all, > I have no problem in this criticism. I absolutely agree that a scope > note should be short and easy to understand. I tried to unify Guenther's > and Martin's rather abstract definitions. > > (As many native non-English-user I am used to the universal language of > science - broken English. Subtleties and fine nuances should be avoided > in the scope notes. They are usually overlooked and lost in translation.) > > For most museum documentalists E55 Type it is sufficient to explain > that E55 Type corresponds to controlled vocabularies and thesauri. > Museum professionals are not realy interested in formal logic. The E55 > Type should be given a scope note ewhich is simple and easy to > understand perhaps not for 12 years old, but for the majority of our > intended user group. The discussion of logic systems, deduction and > reasoning can be placed in a chapter in the introduction named "CRM, > logic and computer assisted reasoning". > > Christian-Emil > > Scope note > The E55 Type comprises terms from thesauri and controlled vocabularies > used to characterise and classify instances of CRM classes. Instance of > E55 Type represent concepts (universals) in contrast to instances of E41 > Appellation which are used to name individuals. > > E55 Type is the CRM's interface to domain specific ontologies and > thesauri. Such can be represented in the CRM as sub class hierarchies > under E55 type possibly with additional properties. > > (some examples) > > > On 21.10.2008 17:23, martin wrote: >> Dear Christian-Emil, >> >> I know the exercise is getting very tiring, but >> >> I would follow Matthew here. Even though I agree generally with all what is said in >> the scope note, I think the scope note itself should be very small and concise. It should >> just say what the Type in the current paradigm is - something like: "the intension of a concept, >> typically identified by a term, used to describe a refinement of the classification of an instance >> of a CRM class." or so. >> I would avoid the term 'subtyping' ("allows for additional refinement through >> sub-typing of the classes"), because it introduces new ambiguities of the same kind we have already discussed. >> >> All other comments should go into the text in the introduction about types, latest from >> "A type, that is, an instance of E55 Type can be interpreted in several ways. " on. >> There we can discuss alternatives, and then state what the CRM actually models. >> >> The reason I see not to put a class under the CRM class hierarchy, but to use an E55, is typically >> because it does not introduce relevant relationships or is too fuzzy. >> >> The term 'Type' in Natural History is actually a type of relationship, modelled in the CRM >> as "taxonomic role" : "P136.1 in the taxonomic role: E55 Type" (holotype, lectotype etc.) >> >> I'd suggest to arrange all this good thought in the introductory text about Types. Since our audience >> is has often some philosophical understanding, I would rather make the duality you mention quite >> explicit. >> >> Matthew, how would you describe E55 Type in the scope note? >> >> Best, >> >> Martin >> >> Dr Matthew Stiff wrote: >>> Hi Christian (and all) >>> >>> >>> >>> I was unable to be at the Athens meeting and, frustratingly, will be in >>> Jeddah when you meet in London (typical!). I wonder if it would be >>> possible to post the issue that this is addressing on the list? Having >>> read the original scope note and Christian's amended version I am >>> concerned that the meaning of E55 Type is, if anything, becoming more >>> opaque. Christian is not to blame for this - The seeds of this were >>> already there in the original scope note. Having been responsible for >>> drafting a lot of these I am only too aware of the temptation to add >>> text to clarify ambiguities rather than seeing if the original text >>> could be rephrased to remove the problem. As a native English speaker I >>> am finding some of these scope notes increasingly difficult to >>> understand so I can only imagine how difficult it must be for non-native >>> speakers! >>> >>> >>> >>> I think it might be better to return to first principles and write a >>> number of simple statements saying what E55 Type IS and IS NOT. We could >>> then use these as the basis for producing a scope note that could be >>> understood by an intelligent 12-year-old (well, ok, we could push this >>> to 16-year-old). >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr Matthew Stiff >>> >>> 19 Riverside Road >>> >>> Oxford >>> >>> OX2 0HT >>> >>> >>> >>> (t) +44 1865 425982 >>> >>> (m) +44 7939 151510 >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> In the SIG meeting at CIDOC 2008 in Athens I was asked to write a draft >>> >>> for a new scope note for E55 Type and adjust the paragraphs about types >>> >>> in the introduction. Yuo will find my suggestion for the scope note >>> >>> below. I postpone the intro part until a decision in taken on the scope >>> >>> note. >>> >>> >>> >>> The scope note is based on the original and on Guenther's suggestion >>> >>> from May. The intention has been to make the scope not more explicit on >>> >>> E55 Type's function as an interface to external classification systems >>> >>> and to avoid the use of the term 'meta class'. In my opinion a type in >>> >>> the CRM is a term, concept or predicate. It is not equal to the set >>> >>> denoted by this term. Martin pointed out in an email that there is very >>> >>> little difference between the interpretation of a CRM class and this >>> >>> interpretation of a type, eg 'information carrier' (CRM class) and >>> >>> 'wineclass' type. >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree that any CRM class (as a concept) and and instance of E55 have >>> >>> the same extensional intentional set/term duality. A difference is that >>> >>> we do not have any mechanisms inside CRM (if we do not follow the >>> >>> suggestion from Vladimir Ivanov) to speak about a CRM class as a whole >>> >>> as we can with respect to an instance of E55. So even though 'wineglass' >>> >>> seen from a bird's view of the model is the same beast as 'information >>> >>> carrier' (hypothetical sets of something), there is a difference in the >>> >>> model qua a formal system. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> CHristian-Emil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> NEW TEXT E55 Scope Note >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> E55 >>> >>> Type >>> >>> >>> >>> Subclass of: E28 Conceptual Object >>> >>> Superclass of: E56 Language >>> >>> E57 Material >>> >>> E58 Measurement Unit >>> >>> >>> >>> Scope note: >>> >>> >>> >>> The class E55 Type comprises concepts (universals) and hence provides an >>> >>> interface to domain specific concepts external to the CRM. In this >>> >>> fashion, a connection between the CRM and a particular (external) domain >>> >>> concept as a subclass of E55 Type can be established. >>> >>> >>> >>> This hierarchical relation allows for additional refinement through >>> >>> sub-typing of the classes (of the CRM) which represent important >>> >>> typological distinctions but where the given user group does not >>> >>> consider it necessary to give a further analysis of the classes by >>> >>> extending the CRM with new sub classes. The interpretation of these >>> >>> sub-types is based on the agreement of the specific groups. >>> >>> >>> >>> A type, that is, an instance of E55 Type can be interpreted in several >>> >>> ways. It can be seen as a term in a thesaurus or as predicate with a >>> >>> free variable in a logical system. The instances of the CRM classes >>> >>> having a given type (e.g. through P2 has type) at a given point in time >>> >>> form a set or a class. However, this class or set is not identical to >>> >>> the type. >>> >>> >>> >>> E55 Type reflects the characteristic use of terms like "Object Type", >>> >>> "Category", "Classification" etc in museum documentation. Such fields >>> >>> are used for terms that declare that the object belongs to a particular >>> >>> category or class of items. It has however nothing to do with the term >>> >>> `type' in Natural History (cf. E83 Type Creation) which is a E24 >>> >>> Physical Man-Made Thing (eg an dried insect on a needle) . But E55 Type >>> >>> includes the notion of a `taxon' which are concepts. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ideally, (external) subclasses of the class E55 Type should be organised >>> >>> into thesauri, with scope notes, illustrations, etc. to clarify their >>> >>> meaning. In general, it is expected that different domains and cultural >>> >>> groups will develop different thesauri in parallel. Consistent >>> >>> reasoning on the expansion of subterms used in a thesaurus is possible >>> >>> insofar as it conforms to both the classes and the hierarchies of the >>> >>> CRM. E56 Language, E57 Material and E58 Measurement Unit have been >>> >>> defined explicitly as elements of the E55 Type hierarchy because they >>> >>> are used categorically in the CRM without reference to instances of >>> >>> them, i.e. the CRM does not foresee the description of instances of >>> >>> instances of them, e.g., the property instance `P45 consists of : gold' >>> >>> does not refer to a particular instance of gold. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Crm-sig mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------- 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
