[Crm-sig] Relations between information objects

João Oliveira joaoli13 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 15:00:59 EET 2008


> 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.
The issue of different meanings is closely related with the interpretation
activity.
According Umberto Eco (in I limiti dell'interpretazione), the interpretation
could
be done in three diffent ways:
- point of view of author (intentio auctoris)
- point of view of reader (intentio lectoris)
- point of view of work (intentio operis)
    I think that the intentio lectoris are variant according to each one's
head.
    Sometimes the author, after publication of one book, make some
corrections
in the text of latter editions to align the intentio operis (of the New
Work)
with the intetio auctoris.
    The intentio operis is invariant and must be considered in the
'situation' of
cultural context at 'F30 Work Conception Event' and 'F4 Manifestation
Singleton'
source language. Any attempt to express the intentio operis with a different

symbolic expression would be only a new F2 Expression of a new derived
F46 Indivudal Work.
    In Law, an area where the statutes interpretation is a fundamental
activity
for millennia, there are specific latin names for intentio auctoris (mens
legislatoris)
and intentio operis (mens legis).
    So, IMHO, the Infomation Object should be related with only ONE meaning,
the
intentio operis.
Regards,

Joao Lima
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20080117/8ff52c0b/attachment.htm 


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list