Dear Oeyvind,
On 29/3/2014 10:13 πμ, Øyvind Eide wrote:
It is quite possible that I do not understand what you say about P155. So this
is my understanding of it:
Co-reference assignment is about making explicit a fact which is assumed by the
one making the assignment to be true.
Yes.
An example:
I claim that the word "Passau" on my train ticket and the place referred to by "city
where the first DHd conference took place" both refer to the physical place Passau. If I make
this statement in an information system, I would say:
E91 Co-Reference Assignment P155 has co-reference target P53 Passau.
(+ the other properties)
The P155 points to the thing in the world to which the person making the
co-reference assignment believes the references to point to.
Yes. How do I know that the URI (or whatever the range instance of P155
is) points to the Passau
I ment when I make this statement? This is why I said,
"The range of P155 can be interpreted as a URI (or whatever identity)
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".
It means, the Co-Reference statement shares the same reality (my
understanding of the world )
as the identifier for "Passau" at p155. In other words, I know by sure
how to relate this identifier to
the City in Bavaria. It could however be, that I refer to a URI for
"Passau", which has been imported
in my knowledge base, and indeed was used for another Passau in another
knowledge base which coined the URI. Then, my coref statement would be
misleading. Indeed, it would be yet another co-reference, but this time
to the use of a URI within a knowledge base, rather than a word within a
text.
All the magic is in your phrase: "The P155 points to the thing in the
world". Whose world?
Therefore, I'd suggest that P155 must point to an identifier of
something the person who makes the
co-ref statement has an unambiguous notion of reality about, either a
thing in the world by use
of an identifier the person "knows" to interpret, or pointing to a
hypothetical thing "the thing referred in these two texts, whatever it
is". In the latter case, it has an identity condition based on the text.
In any case, the scope note must make clear what difference is between
P155 the other links in terms
of knowing. Therefore I proposed a "local shared truth" for P155.
Opinions?
Cheers,
Martin
It may not be known, and it may not be documented -- open world. But the links
from the two strings above to the physical place we know as Passau was not
created in or by the co-reference assignment, it was made explicit in the
assignment.
Of course I can use a URI for Passau. But that is at implementation level, is
it not?
All the best from the train from Passau to Freising,
Øyvind
On 26. mars 2014, at 20:26, martin wrote:
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 assigned non co-reference to.
The property P155 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
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 |
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
