Dear all, following the discussion during the sig meeting, here is the link to the diagrams representing the conversation with the Nero’s example that can be used for HW:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kLy--Qf3mCoLMYxE264ihiIXUgXSLkWzqFTad8weVcI/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kLy--Qf3mCoLMYxE264ihiIXUgXSLkWzqFTad8weVcI/edit?usp=sharing> Feel free to comment Best, Anaïs > Le 4 avr. 2017 à 21:25, Simon Spero <[email protected]> a écrit : > > A quick meta-point on the issue, and the term factoid. > > 1. The issue as a whole involves so many different complicated questions that > any attempt to simplify inference without explicating them separately is > likely to have problems. The issue might involve epistemic modal logics; > doxastic logics (which usually are paraconsistent); justification logics; > context logics; speech acts; quotation; DRT; and all sorts of other fun > stuff. > > It might be possible to provide for the desired inferences using something > like IKL (~ ISO Common Logic plus a proposition forming operator (that)). > Like CL, it's first order with quantification over predicates. > > 2. The term factoid has a second sense in US English, referring to a > something that is true, but trivial. This sense is almost completely > dominant; a factoid in this sense is JTB. > > The earlier sense has been more or less obliterated in common usage. I > translate the first sense to be "a belief justified solely by a single > writing" , possibly with a connotation the creator of the writing either > believed the factoid to be false, or believed that they did not know the > factoid, though that could be definitional. This sense of factoid seems to be > not JTB, even if it is accidentally true, and the form of the publication > would normally be justification. [NB: not equating JTB and knowledge] > > Simon > > On Apr 4, 2017 9:19 AM, "Francesco Beretta" > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Dear All, > > Here some interesting documentation about the Factoid model: > > http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/# > <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 >>> <x-msg://48/#m_-2995047193393367931__J5_holds_to>holds to be: I6 >>> <x-msg://48/#m_-2995047193393367931__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] >>> <mailto:[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 >>> <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> | >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | >> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | >> | Email: [email protected] >> <mailto:[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 >> <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> | >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
