Dear All,
Here some interesting documentation about the Factoid model:
http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/#
Best
Francesco
Le 30.03.17 à 17:10, martin a écrit :
Dear All,
My colleague Athina found the following paper:
Michele Pasin, John Bradley; Factoid-based prosopography and computer
ontologies: towards an integrated approach. Lit Linguist Computing
2015; 30 (1): 86-97.
It seems that "factoid" describes the attitude towards a text I tried
to formulate as "Reading" ?
Best,
Martin
On 23/3/2017 8:10 μμ, martin wrote:
Dear All,
I propose to start the discussion about a simplified Inference model
for the case in which the interpretation of a text as a proposition
is not questioned, but other things are questioned:
A) assertions of historical truth: We need a text with a questioned
fact, such as Nero singing in Rome when it was burning. I think
Tacitus states he was singing in Rome, and another source says he was
on the countryside.
B) Shakespeare's "love is not love" : scholarly interpretation =
translation of sense
C) Questioning provenance or authenticity of texts: In the Merchant
of Venice, place details are mentioned that only a person who was
there could have written that. Shakespeare was not allowed to travel
abroad.
C1) Or, critical editions: In the first written version of Buddha's
speaches (Pali Canon), there are identifiable passages that present
past-Buddha dogmata.
I would start with A), then B), then C)
So, we first want to solve the case that the premise is a
proposition, which is not believed as such.
Rather, it is believed that the author of the text meant to express
this proposition. This implies that the premise does not make any
sense without a provenance assumption, which must be believed.
In A), the provenance of the text from Tacitus is believed. His good
will to say the truth about Nero not.
In B) The provenance "Shakespeare" back to the respective
edition/name or pseudonym/place of creation is not questioned.
In C1) The text as being that compiled following the first
performance is not questioned, but who wrote the text under the name
of Shakespeare is questioned.
In C2) The provenance of the Pali Canon edition is not questioned,
neither that its content mainly goes historically back to Buddha, but
the provenance of a paragraph is questioned.
Therefore, we could Introduce a subclass of I2 Belief i'd call
"reading", which puts the focus on believing authenticity of a
comprehensible natural language proposition relative to an explicitly
stated provenance, but does not mean believing the proposition, nor
questioning the intended meaning of the text:
J1 used as premise (was premise for) : IXX Reading
IXX Reading subclass of I2 Belief (or a generalized Belief)
properties of IXX Reading:
JX1 understanding : Information Object (the cited phrase,
understanding the words)
JX2 believing provenance : I4 Proposition Set (This contains the
link from the cited phrase to the text the phrase is taken from, and
all provenance data believed. E.g. Shakespeare edition 1648(??)
believed, authorship by Shakespeare questioned, etc.)
*optional:*
JX3 reading as : I4 Proposition Set (the translation of the cited
into triples. If absent, the interpretation of the cited phrase is
regarded to be obvious)
and J5 defaults to "true" (I believe all "J5 <#_J5_holds_to>holds to
be: I6 <#_I6_Belief_Value>Belief Value" should default to "True" if
absent).
Then, a conclusion could be that the Information Object (cited
phrase) is not believed. In that case, we would need to generalize I4
to be either a Named Graph or an unambiguous text. If we do not, we
could use JX1, JX3 to introduce the translation of the cited text as
formal proposition, and then use J5 to say "FALSE": "Nero singing in
burning Rome 18 to 24 July, 64 AD"
In the case of text sense interpretation, we would need a sort of
"has translation" construct, if not simply a work about another work
(FRBRoo).
The representation of a text in a formal proposition (Nero P14
performed E7 Activity P2 has type "singing" ...falls within
Destruction....)
In the case of the Buddhist text, we would need in addition the
believe in the provenance of the post-Buddha dogma, plus the reading,
resulting in a different provenance for the paragraph.
If we agree on something like that, let us see if we can simplify or
shortcut anything.
best,
Martin**
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
