Dear Robert,
On 11/6/2018 9:00 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Thank you for pushing this forward, Martin!
Quantification wise, I would be in favor of 0,1 : 0,1.
I prefer 0,1:0,n or 0,n:0,n
If the structure of the set of symbols changed, then it would be a
different symbolic object according to my understanding of E90:
> … identifiable symbols and any aggregation of symbols … that have an
objectively recognizable structure and
that are documented as single units.
Correct. The question is, if we encounter different representations, for
instance one giving a text "hello world" in Latin 1, and another in
ASCII, but the E90 instance is of type Latin characters only, or if you
write my name DOERR or DÖRR, both regarded by German authorities as
identical variants representing the "Umlaut" OE or Ö. Of course, in
that case, having both representations would be redundant. In that case,
0:n is more tolerant.
Another opinion being, that one string is enough to define the E90.
Then, 0,1.
Similarly, if the same string was used by different Symbolic Objects,
then it seems like they would actually be the same symbolic object (or
you would instead use two strings with the same data).
This is a long debated question. In most cases, this appears as
reasonable, but we do have cases in which the identity of the E90, seen
as a message in the sense of Claude Shannon, is bound to the "sender".
Discussing the sense of E35 Title, it appears that we cannot take the
identity of the Title detached from the thing it was given to. This
creates a precedent for the latter interpretation.
As a general principle, a 1:1 dependency is a thing subject to the
suspicion of a hidden identity. To be on the safe side, I would rather
not identify the E90 with the content model.
Two strings with the same data to be different is a (good)
implementation choice of RDF, which assigns the identity to the link
rather to the string, exactly in order to distinguish where the message
comes from. If two strings with the same data are regarded as different,
then we have actually a 0,x:0,n model in the ontology.
(And in the RDF projection this makes no difference, as literal values
do not have their own separate identity)
For the examples, I would replace the Little Red Riding Hood example
with one that is complete, to avoid confusion with the scope note
requirement of being represented completely.
How about:
> The Accession Number (E42) of the J. Paul Getty Museum’s “Abduction of
Europa” (E22) _/has symbolic content/_ “95.PB.7“
Good!
And for the file question, do you mean that the symbolic object is the
MS Word file, which has a representable set of (binary) symbols,
No
or that the symbolic object is text which is incorporated within the
file, but not verbatim (as the characters in the (e.g.) paragraph are
likely to be represented in the file using very a different structure).
Right.
Best,
martin
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin
Doerr <[email protected]>
*Date: *Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 6:46 AM
*To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Chrysoula Bekiari
<[email protected]>
*Subject: *[Crm-sig] Issue 383 Homework
Dear All,
I had sent the below as new issue, but it is indeed the answer to
Issue 383.
The question is, how to deal with a file, which is more specific in
content, such as an MS Word, but represents the character sequence
that defines the content of the respective E90. Is is "is incorporated
in", or a subproperty of it?
On 9/19/2018 11:09 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
Here my scope note:
Pxxx has symbolic content
Domain: E90 Symbolic Object
<#_E2_Temporal_Entity>
Range: E62 String
Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) ??
In CRM RDFS subproperty of: rdfs:value
Scope note: This property associates an instance of E90
Symbolic Object with a complete, identifying representation of its
content in the form of an instance of E62 String. This property
only applies to instances of E90 Symbolic Object that can be
represented completely in this form. The representation may be
more specific than the symbolic level defining the identity
condition of the represented. This depends on the type of the
symbolic object represented. For instance, if a name has type
"Modern Greek character sequence", it may be represented in a
loss-free Latin transcription, meaning however the sequence of
Greek letters. As another example, if the represented object has
type "English words sequence", American English or British English
spelling variants may be chosen to represent the English word
"colour" without defining a different symbolic object. If a name
has type "European traditional name", no particular string may
define its content.
Examples:
* The materials description (E33) of the painting (E22) _/has
symbolic content/_ “Oil, French Watercolors on Paper, Graphite and
Ink on Canvas, with an Oak frame.”
* The title (E35) of Einstein’s 1915 text (E73) _/has symbolic
content/_ “Relativity, the Special and the General Theory“
* The story of Little Red Riding Hood (E33) _/has symbolic
content/_ “Once upon a time there lived in a certain village …”
* The inscription (E34) on Rijksmuseum object SK-A-1601 (E22)
_/has symbolic content/_ “B”
On 9/17/2018 10:38 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Examples I have a lot of!
How about …
* The materials description (E33) of the painting (E22) _/has
symbolic content/_ “Oil, French Watercolors on Paper, Graphite
and Ink on Canvas, with an Oak frame.”
* The title (E35) of Einstein’s 1915 text (E73) _/has symbolic
content/_ “Relativity, the Special and the General Theory“
* The story of Little Red Riding Hood (E33) _/has symbolic
content/_ “Once upon a time there lived in a certain village …”
* The inscription (E34) on Rijksmuseum object SK-A-1601 (E22)
_/has symbolic content/_ “B”
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Richard
Light <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Date: *Monday, September 17, 2018 at 12:09 PM
*To: *"[email protected]" <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: symbolic content
Rob,
Absolutely. So now we need to draft the text to describe this
property, in suitably generalized terms, for the CRM, and then
update our RDF documentation to say exactly how it is to be
used in that context. Perhaps we should start with some examples?
Richard
On 17/09/2018 19:49, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Thank you, Martin! I think this is exactly what we need ☺
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Martin
Doerr <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Date: *Friday, September 14, 2018 at 10:23 AM
*To: *"[email protected]" <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: symbolic content
Dear All,
I propose a new property of Symbolic Object : "has
symbolic content : String" , in RDFS subproperty of
rdfs:value.
The "level of symbolic specificity" by which the String is
interpreted should conform to the type of the Symbolic Object.
Best,
Martin
On 9/14/2018 7:54 PM, Richard Light wrote:
On 13/09/2018 20:57, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear Richard,
What we need, to my opinion, is a property
of Symbolic Object we may call it "has
symbolic content" or "has symbolic content
inline" or anything better, which defines
that the symbolic content *is identical
to* the Literal, *abstracted *to the
"level of symbolic specificity" that the
Literal implies and that conforms to the
identity condition of the Symbolic Object,
i.e., characters of a certain script, or
whatever. That would make the meaning of
the "value" unambiguous.
Again, I'm in complete agreement with this
line of thought. One decision we should make
is whether this property forms part of the
generic CRM framework, or if it is to be an
implementation-specific property which only
appears in our RDF implementation of the CRM.
My instinct is for it to go into the CRM
proper: the treatment of Symbolic Object and
its subclasses would I think be made clearer
by the addition of this property.
For CRM proper!
OK: perhaps we should start a new issue to address this?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
*Richard Light*
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
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
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: [email protected]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
