Dear Christian-Emil,
On 31/7/2014 10:03 πμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> This is an interesting discussion, but somewhat distant from the question
> "Should the scope note for E73 Information Object be extend with an example
> showing that a named graph in rdf represents an instance of E73 Information
> Object?". In my view this is unproblematic.
>
> Propositional objects and hence information objects are described in the CRM
> as: " This class comprises immaterial items, including but not limited to
> stories, plots, procedural prescriptions, algorithms, laws of physics or
> images that are, or represent in some sense, sets of propositions about real
> or imaginary things and that are documented as single units or serve as topic
> of discourse".
>
> Every instance of the class(es) represents a proposition/statement
> constructed by a human. (Thus it is not a Platonic object existing before and
> independently of humans for those interested in the formalist<->Platonist
> debate) . Even in mathematics important proofs are not necessarily carried
> out in all formalistic details. The four colour problem was partly solved by
> computerized proofs, but nobody cared to proof the correctness of the
> programs.
Yes, context cannot be ignored. We have to perceive all information as
ways to communicate about trust in knowledge between humans.
>
> RDF(S): In principle (and in some implementations) rdf triple stores are
> basically equal to a relational database with one table with three (four for
> named graphs?) columns.
"Quad Stores", yes.
> With the old Z39.50 protocol added one would have a variant of linked data or
> semantic web. So there is nothing new here but a much more handy language to
> express pieces information and how they interlink. From a logician point of
> view RDF(S) is an implementation /interpretation technique on the model
> level.
>
> So what is meant by 'classic" in the "RDF(S) is based on classic logic"?.
As I understand, relational databases do not know links (joins are
arbitrary), subsumption and inheritance.This and the Relational logic
are described in FOL?
>
> C-E
>
>
>
>> Also, to clarify: RDF and RDFS are based in classical logic, as is OWL,
>> which is the description logic SROIQ(D).
>>
>> RDF triples are ground terms that, if accepted, are axioms; if there are
>> logical inconsistencies this inconsistency will cause clashes (most OWL
>> reasoners are tableau based).
>>
>> Yes! The implicit logic in RDF/RDFS is however minimal and categorical:
>> subsumption and inheritance of properties. Applied to the concepts in the
>> CRM only, we would not question these on a regular base. To overcome
>> practically the intrinsic fuzziness of the concepts in the CRM, we normally
>> adopt a "recall over precision" attitude in the definition, classification
>> and
>> querying (everything that "could be an E7 Activity" should be classified as
>> an
>> E7 Activity).
>>
>> All other theories expressed in RDF do not need to be logically consistent
>> in a
>> CRM implementation (multiple fathers etc. ;-) ).
>>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
