6. feb. 2015 kl. 19:07 skrev Richard Light <[email protected]>:
> > 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 would say the two are propositional objects co-referring. No problem. > >> >> 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. :-) ) Sure you can trust something external to your infomration system. As, for instance, a propositional object. I am afraid we may be talking past each other but it may be too late for me to see how… Best, Øyvind > > 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]>: >> >>> 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
