Dear Joao, On 11/6/08, João Oliveira Lima <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I fear I don't get your point. So, let me explain in more detail what I meant: Referring to the last paragraph in Christian-Emil's text, if we introduce the type "artist" we could take this term from a thesaurus like the AAT. I would not presuppose that such a technical term must have in any case the status of a concept, because then I would exclude term lists and thesauri which talk just about technical terms. Maybe I have a more rigid use of "concept" because I do not regard it as synonymous to "technical term": Technical terms are just normalized words as in a controlled language, whereas concepts result from an abstraction process. And I think to keep the destinction between "concept" and "technical term" is important from a methodological point of view. If such a term is embedded in a "norrower/broader term" hierarchy in a thesaurus --- as one would expect --- one can of course navigate in this hierarchy as well, keeping in mind that "narrower/broader term" is not the same relation as "sub/super-concept" in a concept hierarchy. So, w.r.t. the practical use of E55, I would argue to keep the system as open as possible from a methodological point of view and not exclude to take terms for E55 Types from thesauri of the kind mentioned above from the very beginning. > 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). If this was the idea of the authors of FRBRoo I must confess that I do not share the --- in my view rather obsolete --- metaphysical assumption of abstract entities without symbols or names. Regards, -- Guenther Goerz > > 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 > > > >
