Dear All,
I would describe things a bit differently.
I believe we should consider the following:
Very generally, in order to observe a sign as a sign, we need a context
fitting to some hypotheses what people would put signs on,
characteristics suggesting a feature as human made, but most importantly
a finite selection of potential patterns. The latter condition is
absolutely necessary. The result will be a ranked list of best fitting
patterns.
This means that the observer must have previous knowledge of possible
sign sets. This equals to partial knowledge of the writing system. There
In very rare cases a single context itself will provide a /large enough/
set of distinct, non-random patterns in order to infer the sign set
used. In these cases, typically the arrangement of signs will support
hypotheses that the signs are not just decorative but form messages
(regular distances, directions, alignments). This process can again be
regarded as creating partial knowledge of the writing system prior to
observing (recognizing) a single sign.
A variant of the latter occurs when reading a sloppy hand-written text,
e.g., when I read my grandpa's notebook. The character set can only be
either Latin or Sütterlin. I can distinguish the latter by recognizing a
few very characteristic signs in the overall text. Then, I need to
identify more and more words in the text until I am trained to more and
more of Grandpa's own variants of the Sütterlin character set. This
depends on the size of the sample. Only then I can go back and recognize
within the continuous lines single signs.
In short, I maintain that recognizing a text /can be prior to/
recognizing single signs.
I believe the definition of the "writing system" needs to differentiate
the character set sufficiently from the other constituents of a writing
system.
The arrangement of characters into texts are also standardized by a
writing system. The arrangement rules of a writing system for signs in a
text create also characteristic, recognizable patterns. There are enough
archaeological cases, I assume, in which a text can be recognized as
such without any readable character on it.
Hence, there are in addition observable arrangement features of a
writing system.
Note that all results of observation in an encoded propositional form
require that the observation itself applies hypotheses about the forms
the feature to be observed can appear in.
Comments?
Best,
Martin
On 9/13/2021 12:29 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:
Would level 1 be adequately covered by S4 Observation?
Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/>
*From:*Crm-sig <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Achille
Felicetti via Crm-sig
*Sent:* 12 September 2021 19:00
*To:* Martin Doerr <[email protected]>
*Cc:* crm-sig <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: revise TX5 Reading versus TX6
Transcription
Dear Martin,
Your observations are extremely stimulating, as usual, especially with
regard to the observation of a linguistic object which is a very
complex and articulated operation. In our view, in particular, the
following conditions can occur while a linguistic object is observed:
1. I observe some signs on a surface without even realising that it is
a text.
2. I understand that it is a text but without understanding its
meaning (typically, even without understanding what language or
writing system it is).
3. I actually read and understand text.
We agree with your observation that the relationship between these
types of observation needs to be better specified. We therefore
propose to keep TX5 Reading as the most specific observation (type 3)
and to define one or more classes for the other observation cases of
which TX5 could become a specific one.
As regards the Transcription, for the epigraphists this type of
operation has a rather broad meaning that covers various cases, from
the “exact” reproduction of the signs, to their stylised rendering, up
to the transliteration using a different script. In the first cases,
transcription does not necessarily imply an understanding of the signs
(e.g. see publications on texts in unknown alphabets such as the one
on the Phaistos Disc).
The other ideas and new classes you propose, relating to the other
cases, are very intriguing, we are thinking about them, but they
probably need a more articulated discussion.
Regards,
Achille & Francesca
Il giorno 6 set 2021, alle ore 19:50, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> ha scritto:
Dear All,
I belief that TX5 Reading and TX6 Transcription should be in a
different relationship.
In more detail, I propose to rename TX5 Reading to "TX5 Text
Recognition", and ontologically strictly separate observation from
inferred interpretation of meaning, once TX5 Reading is declared
as subclass of Observation, and TX6 Transcription is not.
Note that one can perfectly "read" a clear text written in a known
script, without understanding any word. E.g., I can indeed copy
well-written or printed Chinese Han characters without
understanding any Chinese, just by knowledge of the relevant
structural features. I assume the same holds for cuneiform.
Equally, I can copy a Latin inscription without understanding any
of the abundant abbreviations. This is indeed the proper observation.
If the result of this "reading" is a documentation in the same
script and notation or not is a detail up to the reader. I'd
argue, however, that the class TX5 *needs* a formal output, an
instance of E90 Symbolic Object at least, in order to be useful.
This is missing in the current model. Transcription in the sense
of changing script of notation could be an internal, not
documented intermediate step of the text recognition
("transcribing text recognition", or adequate output properties),
or an explicit step after the recognition of the Symbolic Object.
It is obviously true that text recognition typically includes
arguments of understanding. I'd argue, that this is *not*
intrinsic to reading, but only applies to texts not clearly typed.
Strictly speaking, any such process constitutes *ERROR CORRECTION*
and text *COMPLETION*.
Therefore, I propose a new class "Meaning Comprehension", which
would take *as input a recognized text *and interprets an assumed
meaning in plain language, or even formal propositions, which
would be the end-stadium of the reading process, resulting in an
information object. This class may reside in CRMinf or in CRMtex.
We can then construct from "Text Recognition", "Transcription" and
"Meaning Comprehension" combined and short-cutting constructs,
which would include "error correction", "resolution of recognition
ambiguity" and "missing part completion" as useful in practice for
representing typical scholarly defaults.
I'd argue that resolution of linguistic ambiguity using scholarly
arguments about the likely context of reference of the text
constitutes a scholarly interpretation process after "reading",
regardless whether error correction and completion used such
arguments.
We need these separations, in order to create a clear interface to
"Belief Adoption" in CRMinf, which is about the assumed real world
truth of statements in texts.
Opinions?
All the best,
Martin
--
------------------------------------
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] <mailto:[email protected]>
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>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
--
------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
