Dear Guenther,
Since our Group has a background in thesaurus management systems, I can only
report
that thesauri using broader-narrower terms without an explicit associated
notion of concept
come up with strange work-arounds, for instance, "orange" appearing in two
hierarchies,
color and fruits, without being identical (example from a real system),
whatever that means.
In the end, there seems to be an implicit notion of concept, be it by
restricting
ambiguities by the implicit context.
We do not aim with the CRM property P127 has broader term (has narrower term)
at other
semantics than BTG, such as parthood, geographical inclusion, contextual
association etc.
We do not aim at describing "orange" as narrower term of fruit and color
simultaneously, because it
makes no sense. There is no real sense of compatibility to achieve with such
systems.
Any good dictionary deals with sense disambiguation. So, I do not see a point
to make
an ontological model, i.e. a part of the CRM, of an unreflected practice to
deal with terms.
So, I prefer not to regard instances of E55 Type as terms in the lectical
sense, but rather
to regard terms as Appellations.
cordially,
Martin
Guenther Goerz wrote:
Dear Christian-Emil,
thank you very much for sending your proposal, which in my opinion is
a real improvement.
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.
Furthermore, I'm not sure whether the remarks about metaclasses and
second order in the very last paragraph are really transparent for
practioners. When I asked the audience of my talk at the CIDOC
conference in Athens who would know what a metaclass is, three of
estimated 150 people raised their hands. This means that we should
keep it simple. A general hint to decidability as the reason for CRM
proposing the distinction as it is, should do.
By the way, I think subclass is one word, not two.
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
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
