Dear Carlo,
I4 is meant to be this subclass of E90 and E89 : sets of symbolic
objects that are propositions and that can be true or false. Since E73
is a subclass of E90 and E89 already, but not restricted to formal
propositions in the narrower sense, I4 is subclass of E73 Information
Object.
Also, E89 is meant much wider, such as the plot of a story etc.
So, I think with defining I4 as we did, we do exactly what you propose?
The scope note is just meant to be
clear that propositions in I4 are restricted to a specific form.
So, I see your "EX" is just our "I4" ?
We may argue that "that an I2 Belief is held about" should be "that an
I2 Belief can be held about".
What do you think?
By the way, we regard shorter scope notes not as better. To our
experience they can cause a lot of ambiguity,
especially for newcomers, people from other disciplines and cultures.
They may even appear as arrogant.
ISO insists on single phrase definitions. Therefore the ISO version
splits the scope note into what ISO regards a definition and additional
explanations. We try to avoid all ambiguities that may arise when coming
from
different disciplines. Our default audience are scholars. Computer
scientists should just not be mislead by the
text.
All the best,
Martin
On 3/2/2015 11:40 πμ, Carlo Meghini wrote:
The scope notes of E89 Propositional Object say:
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 ...
so, there is already a notion for sets of propositions. On the other
hand, there is already a notion for formal expressions (i.e. E90
Symbolic Object). So, to model sets of symbolic objects that are
propositions and that can be true or false, I'd go by:
- creating a sub-class of E90, say EX, whose instances are binary,
formal propositions
Then, sets of EX can be modelled as instances of E89 Propositional
Object (unless you want a sub-class for them), that are connected by
(the appropriate) partOf property to E89 Propositional Object, and we
are done.
Sorry if I got something wrong.
Carlo
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM, martin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear All,
CRM Inf I4 Proposition Set has the following scope note:
Scope note:This class comprises the sets of propositions that an
I2 Belief is held about. It could be implemented as a named graph,
a spreadsheet or any other structured data-set.
I believe this is not clear enough in contrast to E89
Propositional Object.
I propose:
Scope note:This class comprises the sets of formal, binary
propositions that an I2 Belief is held about. It could be
implemented as a named graph, a spreadsheet or any other
structured data-set. Regardless the specific
syntax employed, the effective propositions it contains should be
constituted by unambiguous identifiers and concepts of a formal
ontology.
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Meghini
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione [ISTI]
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche [CNR]
Via G. Moruzzi, 1 - 56124 Pisa - Italy
Tel: +39 050 6212893
Mob: +39 348 3972164
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
