[Crm-sig] about types draft

[Guenther Goerz]

Dear Christian-Emil,

thank you very much for sending your proposal, which in my opinion is
a real improvement.

A brief comment: In the first paragraph you write that instances of
E55 Type represent concepts.  I think this is unnecessarily
restrictive: They can just be terms (e.g. in a thesaurus) --- without
the claim that they must be concepts, i.e. results of an abstraction
step.

Furthermore, I'm not sure whether the remarks about metaclasses and
second order in the very last paragraph are really transparent for
practioners.  When I asked the audience of my talk at the CIDOC
conference in Athens who would know what a metaclass is, three of
estimated 150 people raised their hands.  This means that we should
keep it simple.  A general hint to decidability as the reason for CRM
proposing the distinction as it is, should do.

By the way, I think subclass is one word, not two.

Cordially,
-- Guenther Goerz

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Guenther Goerz            Fon: (+49 9131) 852-8701; -8702
Univ. Erlangen-Nuernberg            Fax: (+49 9131) 852-8986
Department Informatik  8/KI         goerz  AT informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Haberstrasse 2                      ggoerz AT csli.stanford.edu
D-91058 ERLANGEN
               http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/inf8/en/goerz.html


On 11/5/08, Christian-Emil Ore <c.e.s.ore at edd.uio.no> wrote:
> Dear all,
>  I attach a draft of a "about types".
>
>  It is based on the new scopenote, the orignal text, Martin's new and the
> comments from Erlangen.
>
>  Regards,
>  Christian-Emil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Crm-sig mailing list
>  Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>  http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>