[Crm-sig] Relations between information objects

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Mon Jan 14 14:59:00 EET 2008

Dear Christian-Emil,

Yes, the problem reminds me the discussion we had in Nuremberg, which we will
continue in Heraklion:

If the Information Object is simultaneously a set of propositions and a set
of symbols in one, then a change of symbolic representation would change only
parts of its features, the symbols but not the propositions. This is what I would
currently favour for practical reasons.

If we regard Information Object to be only symbols, it would have no meaning
as such, but should be related to ONE (?) meaning or MULTIPLE (?) interpretations-
readings. This meaning or reading could be regarded as propositions, which in turn would refer
to things, "Situations" as Aldo Gangemi et al.

This makes 3 levels:
A) The characters of "The rabbit is ready for lunch"
B) The proposition of "The rabbit is ready for lunch" ("Das Kaninchen ist fertig zum essen").
C) A situation that fits with the proposition "The rabbit is ready for lunch": It may be cooked,
     or may be seaten at the table, still alive and hungry....

If we could identify clearly a representation-independent propositional level
underneath the symbolic representation, one could describe the transscript as
a symbolic object preserving the "reading". I fear, for practical reasons,
the sophistication of such a model may be overly difficult to handle in practice.
Of course, there may be situations were such a model may be appropriate, e.g.,
if we deal with multiple transscripts, or even "audio books".



Christian-Emil Ore wrote:
> Dear all,
> I think Martins's suggestion is very good. It is pretty abstract, and 
> one may need some time to adjust to the idea that the motif of a 
> manuscript page shows features of a (abstract text), but why not?
> I am currently adjusting a transcript of the codex for the St Olaf saga 
> from a facsimile edition. I am not quite sure that my understanding of 
> the transcript is close to any common abstract information object except 
> the one in my own head, though.
> Regards,
> Christian-Emil
> On 11.01.2008 22:34, martin wrote:
>> Dear Dieter,
>> I suggest to use "P130 shows features of" and P130.1 kind of similarity: "Transcript".
>> I'd regard your manuscript as a E33 Linguistic Object in any case, it can be in addition
>> a Visual Item, but I don't think tiny decorations would make this classification necessary.
>> Martin
>> Dieter Köhler wrote:
>>> Trying to record the structure of a manuscript 
>>> and its digital reproductions with CIDOC CRM 
>>> 4.2.2 I come across the following problem.  I 
>>> have a digital facsimile and a normalized 
>>> transcription of a manuscript.  The facsimile 
>>> consists of scans of the individual pages of the 
>>> manuscript; the transcription is normalized by 
>>> correcting misspellings, skipping deleted 
>>> passages and rearranging some others (according 
>>> to insertion marks in the manuscript).
>>> I understand that
>>> (A) the physical manuscript is an E84 Information Carrier
>>> (B) a digital scan is an E73 Information Object 
>>> (more precisely an E36 Visual Item)
>>> (C) a transcription is an E73 Information Object 
>>> (I am not sure whether I can use E33 Linguistic 
>>> Object here, because some paragraphs contain tiny 
>>> non-linguistic illustrations within the textual sequence)
>>> (D) a particular file on the hard disk containing 
>>> a scan is an E84 Information Carrier
>>> (E) a particular file on the hard disk containing 
>>> a transcription is an E84 Information Carrier
>>> The following relations apply:
>>> (A) P128 carries (B)
>>> (A) P128 carries (C)
>>> (D) P128 carries (B)
>>> (E) P128 carries (C)
>>> (B) and (C) are distinct E73 Information Objects, 
>>> but nevertheless the transcription (C) is an 
>>> interpretation of the visual clues of (B), 
>>> expressed for example in: "The vertical stroke in 
>>> the first line is the word 'I'."
>>> I think it would be useful to have a predicate in 
>>> CIDOC-CRM to indicate that one Information Object 
>>> is not identical with but derived from 
>>> another.  The closest predicates in meaning are 
>>> 'P67 refers to' and 'P138 represents'.  However, 
>>> it seems that neither is really accurate here.  Any ideas?
>>> Dieter Köhler
>>> Dr. Dieter Köhler, M.A.
>>> Wissenschaftlicher Assistent
>>> Institut für Philosophie und
>>> Studienzentrum Multimedia
>>> Universität Karlsruhe (TH)
>>> University address:
>>> Institut für Philosophie der
>>> Universität Karlsruhe (TH)
>>> D-76128 Karlsruhe
>>> Phone:       +49-(0)-721-608-2149
>>> Direct Line: +49-(0)-721-608-7743
>>> Fax:         +49-(0)-721-608-3084
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Principle Researcher          |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                Center for Cultural Informatics               |
                Information Systems Laboratory                |
                 Institute of Computer Science                |
    Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
  Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
          Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl               |

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list