Dear All,
Here my homework:
E91 Co-Reference Assignment
Subclass of:E13 Attribute Assignment
Scope note:This class comprises actions of making the assertion whether
two or more particular instances of E89 Propositional Object refer to
the same instance of E1 CRM Entity. The assertion is based on the
assumption that this was an implicit fact being made explicit by this
assignment. Use of this class allows for the full description of the
context of this assignment. (MD will write an extension about the levels
of belief)
A co-reference assertion may admit a certain degree or strength of
belief, such as "possibly", "most likely" etc. This can be modelled
using the property /P2 has type/ with a suitable terminology. However,
this degree of belief will be common to all statement asserted by one
instance of E91 Co-Reference Assignment. Otherwise, the assertion must
be broken down into a suitable number of instances with different
degrees of belief.
If there exists a document describing particular evidence, this can be
referred to by using /P used specific object/. There may nothing more be
known about the instance of E1 CRM Entity to which the described
statements are assumed to refer to than the facts expressed by these
very statements.
Frequently, scholars may like to contradict to a co-reference statement
or point to frequent confusions. This can be modelled using the property
/P154 <#_P154_assigned_non>//assigned non co-reference to./
The property /P155 <#_P155_has_co-reference>//has co-reference
target/allows for associating an ???
//
In the end, I got confused: The range of P155 can be interpreted as a
URI used within the same knowledge base as the instance of E91. Then, it
would correspond to a co-reference between some text element and the
knowledge base in which we implement the CRM, the "local truth".
In that case, also one instance of P153 would make sense, even two
instances of P155 only.
In case we talk about Linked Open Data, the issue becomes more obscure.
We could regard the co-reference to be between some text element and the
document the URI resolves into.
If however someone uses this very URI in another context, the question
of co-reference is again there.
It appears as if we need a construct to refer to the use of a URI within
a knowledge base or RDF document as an instance of Propositional Object.
If we follow this line, then the interpretation of P155 pointing to a
"self co-reference" would be consistent, and any other
meaning of referring to a URI would need a contextualization of the URI
to be discussed.
Opinions?
Best,
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | 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) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
