Hi Dominic,
At least for me, it is not obvious at all.
I think we have several choices:
Either we use P155 only for the local knowledge, i.e., within the same
knowledge base in which we describe the
co-reference assertion. Then, P155 points to the "real thing", i.e., the
reference is locally resolved. If the assertion assumes some
probability, it is not about what P155 means.
Or we use P155 for any URI, but then the person who makes the
co-reference statement would make just another
assumption what the URI P155 points to is about. Then, it would
essentially make no difference to P153, except for the
range class.
The latter provokes the next question: By what is the meaning of a URI
determined? Has a URI always a unique "owner",
the one who introduced it? Or is the meaning of the URI, as with any
other name, determined by the context of use.
For instance, I take a URI for Passau from a gazetteer, mean the city in
Bavaria, but choose one of an American city, and
use it in my knowledge base. Which city does it represent?
On the other side, I could use the gazetteer, check the georeference
etc., and I am sure it is the city I mean. Then, the
external knowledge becomes local knowledge.
Depending, pointing to a URI in a coreference statement may require to
add a knowledge base of reference to the
URI, and then the URI becomes part of a statement of an information
object, the knowledge base of reference", as
any other target of P153. This knowledge base of reference could be of
the defining Actor or of the using Actor.
We could drop P155 all over, but I think the question what meaning a
reused URI has is interesting on its own. I fear it can only be
resolved, if the Actor who has introduced the URI is defined.
Opinions?
Best,
Martin
On 1/4/2014 11:11 πμ, Dominic Oldman wrote:
I don't understand this properly despite reading this email quite a few times.
I have some text contained in a book or on an object that refers to or is about
a city in Bavaria called Passau.
I have a local knowledge of this place that I have my own identifier for. I can
therefore co reference the text to my identifier.
Someone else has an identifier for Passau but I don't know for sure whether it
is taking about the same thing. It is outside my local knowledge.
Is the suggestion that P155 should only be used for co referencing local
knowledge not external uri outside local knowledge.
Thanks and apologies if this is obvious.
Dominic
PS. Also, if I use Getty places in my local knowledge base I assume that I can
say that this is local knowledge even though it is an external uri.
Dominic Oldman
Deputy Head of Information Systems, IS Development Manager,
ResearchSpace Principal Investigator,
British Museum
Sent from Blackberry: 07980865309
----- Original Message -----
From: Øyvind Eide [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 12:27 AM
To: crm-sig <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 230 Co-reference
On 30. mars 2014, at 21:25, martin wrote:
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?
Dear Martin,
I think I understand now. But to make it clear if I do:
in a normal reference situation, for instance (to go back to the situation of
the example in CRM):
E82 Hans Jæger (the name on the title page of the book) P131 identfies E21 Hans
Jæger (the historical person)
In that case the problem of reference you talk about does not apply.
But in the situation:
E91 Co-Reference Assignment P155 has co-reference target E21 Hans Jæger (the
historical person)
the problem does arise.
The difference between the two situations is that in the former (P131) the
reference is expressed in the model, whereas in the latter (P155) the
references is expressed in a statement recorded in the model.
Right?
The questions is: do we need to record what the person making the co-reference statement
believes the propositional objects refer to? The reference from each of them
will/should/may be recorded in the system throught systems such as the various
"identifies" properties.
Best,
Øyvind
_______________________________________________
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
