On 06/02/2015 18:11, Øyvind Eide wrote:
If one source refers to one object, then it is not a co-reference.
Then it is a reference.
Co-reference is there to say that you know (for some reason you may
specify if you want to) that two or more word/phrases refer to the
same real-world person. The latter can be specififed or it can be left
undefined.
I fail to see why co-reference should solve the problem of single
propositional objects referring to real world objects — we already had
mecanisms for that.
OK, here is an example. This section of Linked Data text from the
recently-opened EEBO:
http://data.modes.org.uk/TEI-P5/EEBO-TCP/id/A01483.d1e2619
is, in my opinion, talking about this non-information object:
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick
How would you model that in the CRM?
I have a feeling that the problems documented in the long paper would
apply to single references too if the target is not modelled within
your information system. This may be linked to fundamental problems
with the whole linked data paradigm. But this is just a feeling so I
have to flesh it out more to say something evidence based on it.
This is an aspect of the issue which I don't understand. If you can't
(knowingly) decide that you trust an external Linked Data resource and
are allowed to make assertions which touch on the entities which it
defines, what hope is there for the whole Linked Data project? (Or, if
this constraint is specific to the CRM, then the same point applies more
locally. :-) )
Richard
I may have misunderstood you question so please use smaller spoons if
I did!
Regards,
Øyvind
6. feb. 2015 kl. 18:08 skrev Richard Light <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi,
If I have interpreted your longer paper correctly, that means that
the whole co-reference mechanism that the CRM has erected fails to
address the practical requirement which I would have. That is, the
ability for me to indicate that a word or phrase in a source document
refers (in my opinion), to a specified real-world person (or other
non-information object).
Have I got this right, and, if so, is there a CRM mechanism which
/does /allow me to make this kind of assertion?
Best wishes,
Richard
On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote:
Dear all,
Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two
things:
* New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep
semantic web complexity out of the CRM. Thanks to Gerald for input.
* A draft for a document describing the complexity left out of the
scope notes, based on Martin's previous scope notes and input from
Arianna (but no responsibility on any of them for the result!). This
document could be developed into a technical paper referred to from
CRM, to an article, or both.
Best,
Øyvind
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
*Richard Light*
--
*Richard Light*
