> Am 19.12.2017 um 12:10 schrieb Richard Light <[email protected]>: > > >> Introducing a class for context sounds strange to me as it would indicate >> that the rest is context-free. Still, it could make sense in order to have a >> possibility to make context explicit in the cases we need to. >> > Surely the statements which we make with the CRM are themselves the 'context' > for individual assertions? If so, we have our context already, and don't > need to invent an artificial mechanism to express it.
I would say ONE context, not THE context. The assertions often come from somewhere, loosing one context and adding a new one, the two being more or less similar. Granted, the original context is often lost already when the data was entered into a database, long before it was expressed in CRM. A series of de/re-contextualisations… Regards, Øyvind > > Richard > On 18/12/2017 10:05, Øyvind Eide wrote: >> >>> Am 15.12.2017 um 10:53 schrieb Martin Doerr <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>> >>> On 3/26/2017 9:29 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote: >>>> Dear Martin, >>>> >>>> this is dangerous territory. Do we need to go there? We may have to open >>>> up all sorts of boxes including those owned by language philosophers and >>>> semioticians. >>>> >>>> An utterance is made by someone, surely. But is a title an utterance? It >>>> is not purely either or, but is it not more langue than parole? >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_and_parole >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_and_parole> >>>> >>>> I think one can find many different views on what information is in the >>>> humanities and many of them would be quite different from Shannon. >>>> Personally, I think thinking based on dialogism makes a lot of sense. >>>> >>>> Do we have to enter this territory? Do we need to express opinions on >>>> these things in CRM? >>> Dear Øyvind, >>> >>> Clearly, one principle of the CRM is, never interpret a term! So, we are >>> not concerned settling disputes about what information or an utterance is. >>> We are concerned with the consistency and effectiveness of definitions for >>> our information purposes. So, for me the problem is a simple question of >>> disambiguation of identity. >>> >>> Since you wrote (and I agree) "E35 Title can only be used when such a >>> string is actually are used as a title...." this implies that (a) the same >>> string may be used twice as a title and (b) translates differently in these >>> cases. >>> >>> This means, that the identity of the title as described above consists of >>> the string + context. Otherwise, the scope note is inconsistent. >>> This context can either be determined as (1) language, (2) one work of art, >>> (3) multiple works of art intentionally referring to the same source - F1 >>> Work or >>> "loans" from other F1 Work. >>> >>> This creates a precedent with respect to identity of information. Equally >>> obviously, if we create in the CRM an identifier for "mehr Licht" by >>> Goethe, true or not, and want to trace arguments about the interpretation >>> and reality in an information system, we must, if we want or not, carry the >>> context with us. So, we have two choices: Either we keep the identity of an >>> E73 provenance independent, and introduce another class for information >>> object use context, or we imply a concept of provenance as part of the >>> identity of the information object. >>> >>> Equally obviously, it is impossible in general to trace exact provenance. >>> We could, however, in the scope note, describe the context concept behind >>> an information object in a more general way, which implies specialization >>> from case to case. >>> >>> A relevant application are tombstone and other short inscriptions. >>> Epigraphy experts regard the same text on another stone as different. >>> >>> We may even talk about two message levels. For instance "r.i.p." as a >>> generic message in the tombstone context, and "r.i.p." as a personal >>> message on a >>> particular tombstone. >>> >>> Or we say r.i.p. to the issue;-) >> >> Indeed, Martin. I see your arguments, and hopefully understand them in the >> right context. >> >> As Hirst pointed out, context is a spurious concept. We need some, we never >> need (or can have) all, and the border between the two is unsharp. >> >> Is this not also the trade-off of information integration in general, and >> where we disagree with the semantic web community (a sentence that should >> have had a lot of qualification)? Because we know that the dream of a >> decontextualised emerging network of useful information is just a dream, at >> least for cultural history and the humanities. Still, we also know >> that if we let ourselves tie down to traditional levels of context we are >> lost and will never be able to integrate something. >> >> Introducing a class for context sounds strange to me as it would indicate >> that the rest is context-free. Still, it could make sense in order to have a >> possibility to make context explicit in the cases we need to. >> >> Regards, >> >> Øyvind >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> martin >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Øyvind >>>> >>>>> 24. mar. 2017 kl. 12.50 skrev martin <[email protected]> >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Oeyvind, >>>>> >>>>> I agree with the scope note, given the interpretation we decided. I >>>>> wonder however if there is a >>>>> deeper issue here: >>>>> >>>>> In Germany there exists the saying that dying Goethe uttered "mehr Licht" >>>>> ("more light"). I reused this proposition yesterday, because I wanted to >>>>> read a newspaper. >>>>> >>>>> Claude Shannon defined information as a message with a known provenance, >>>>> which is the most accepted theory in computer science. >>>>> >>>>> That would mean that the identity of an Information Object is a tuple >>>>> <content,sender>, rather than <content>. >>>>> >>>>> If we accept that, we enter another hell of arguments about what the >>>>> identity of the sender is. That is easy for a Title, but quite tricky for >>>>> the non-smoking symbol. >>>>> >>>>> Question: Should we touch also this front, or are we sure that "more >>>>> light" is always "more light" ? >>>>> >>>>> In other words, may be a title actually deviates from an appellation in >>>>> that it adds to its identity the provenance, which in turn allows for >>>>> translation? >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> >>>>> martin >>>>> >>>>> On 24/3/2017 11:45 πμ, Øyvind Eide wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is my homework for Issue 260: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. E35: Accepted the comment made by Oyvind that the scope note of E35 >>>>>> Title is misleading, since it refers to something functioning a title, >>>>>> not having the form of a title, it is decided to keep the Title, to >>>>>> update scope note. This HW is assigned to Oyvind >>>>>> >>>>>> I have changed the first paragraph of the scope note >>>>>> >>>>>> Old scope note for E35: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This class comprises the names assigned to works, such as texts, >>>>>>> artworks or pieces of music. >>>>>>> Titles are proper noun phrases or verbal phrases, and should not be >>>>>>> confused with generic object names such as “chair”, “painting” or >>>>>>> “book” (the latter are common nouns that stand for instances of E55 >>>>>>> Type). Titles may be assigned by the creator of the work itself, or by >>>>>>> a social group. >>>>>>> This class also comprises the translations of titles that are used as >>>>>>> surrogates for the original titles in different social contexts. >>>>>> Proposed new version: >>>>>> >>>>>> “This class comprises textual strings that within a cultural context can >>>>>> be clearly identified as titles due to their form. Being a subclass of >>>>>> E41 Appellation, E35 Title can only be used when such a string is >>>>>> actually are used as a title of a work, such as a text, an artwork, or a >>>>>> piece of music. >>>>>> >>>>>> Titles are proper noun phrases or verbal phrases, and should not be >>>>>> confused with generic object names such as “chair”, “painting” or “book” >>>>>> (the latter are common nouns that stand for instances of E55 Type). >>>>>> Titles may be assigned by the creator of the work itself, or by a social >>>>>> group. >>>>>> This class also comprises the translations of titles that are used as >>>>>> surrogates for the original titles in different social contexts.” >>>>>> >>>>>> ————————— >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. E49 Time Appellation: to keep but it should be merged with Date and >>>>>> it should be decided if they keep the same name (Oyvind) >>>>>> >>>>>> E50 Date should be marked obsolete. I have changed the inheritance, the >>>>>> first paragraph of the scope note, and added two examples. >>>>>> >>>>>> Old definition of E49 Time Appellation: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Subclass of : E41 Appellation >>>>>>> Superclass of: E50 Date >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scope Note: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This class comprises all forms of names or codes, such as historical >>>>>>> periods which are characteristically used to refer to a specific E52 >>>>>>> Time-Span. This includes human- and machine readable dates and >>>>>>> timestamps. >>>>>>> The instances of E49 Time Appellation may vary in their degree of >>>>>>> precision, and they may be relative to other time frames, “Before >>>>>>> Christ” for example. Instances of E52 Time-Span are often defined by >>>>>>> reference to a cultural period or an event e.g. ‘the duration of the >>>>>>> Ming Dynasty’. >>>>>>> Examples: >>>>>>> • “Meiji” [Japanese term for a specific time-span] >>>>>>> • “1st half of the XX century” >>>>>>> • “Quaternary” >>>>>>> • “1215 Hegira” [a date in the Islamic calendar] >>>>>>> • “Last century” >>>>>> New definition of E49 Time Appellation: >>>>>> >>>>>> Subclass of : E41 Appellation >>>>>> >>>>>> Scope Note: >>>>>> >>>>>> This class comprises all forms of names or codes, such as historical >>>>>> periods, and dates, which are characteristically used to refer to a >>>>>> specific E52 Time-Span. >>>>>> The instances of E49 Time Appellation may vary in their degree of >>>>>> precision, and they may be relative to other time frames, “Before >>>>>> Christ” for example. Instances of E52 Time-Span are often defined by >>>>>> reference to a cultural period or an event e.g. ‘the duration of the >>>>>> Ming Dynasty’. >>>>>> Examples: >>>>>> • “Meiji” [Japanese term for a specific time-span] >>>>>> • “1st half of the XX century” >>>>>> • “Quaternary” >>>>>> • “1215 Hegira” [a date in the Islamic calendar] >>>>>> • “Last century” >>>>>> • “2013-10-05” >>>>>> • “Mon May 19 22:39:23 CET 2014” >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Øyvind >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> 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> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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> > > -- > Richard Light > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
