Dear Guenther and Christian-Emil,
About your brief comment, I think that the "E55 Type as concept" is
correct. The terms (or Labels) which concepts are knowed should be modelled
in another class.
Making an analogy with FRBRoo entities, the "E55 Type" is located at
same level of "F21 Individual Work" (abstract entity, without symbols or
names), and the "E44 Appellation" (or Exx Type Appellation") is located at
same level of "F2 Expression" (symbolic entity).
Regards,
Joao Oliveira Lima
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Guenther Goerz <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> A brief comment: In the first paragraph you write that instances of
> E55 Type represent concepts. I think this is unnecessarily
> restrictive: They can just be terms (e.g. in a thesaurus) --- without
> the claim that they must be concepts, i.e. results of an abstraction
> step.
>
>
> Cordially,
> -- Guenther Goerz
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Dr. Guenther Goerz Fon: (+49 9131) 852-8701; -8702
> Univ. Erlangen-Nuernberg Fax: (+49 9131) 852-8986
> Department Informatik 8/KI goerz AT informatik.uni-erlangen.de
> Haberstrasse 2 ggoerz AT csli.stanford.edu
> D-91058 ERLANGEN
> http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/inf8/en/goerz.html
>
>
> On 11/5/08, Christian-Emil Ore <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > I attach a draft of a "about types".
> >
> > It is based on the new scopenote, the orignal text, Martin's new and the
> > comments from Erlangen.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christian-Emil
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
