[Crm-sig] about types draft

Guenther Goerz guenther.goerz at gmail.com
Thu Nov 6 12:48:47 EET 2008


Dear Joao,

On 11/6/08, João Oliveira Lima <joaoli13 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Guenther and Christian-Emil,
>
>      About your brief comment, I think that the "E55 Type as concept" is
> correct. The terms (or Labels) which concepts are knowed should be modelled
> in another class.

I fear I don't get your point.  So, let me explain in more detail what
I meant:  Referring to the last paragraph in Christian-Emil's text, if
we introduce the type "artist" we could take this term from a
thesaurus like the AAT.  I would not presuppose that such a technical
term must have in any case the status of a concept, because then I
would exclude term lists and thesauri which talk just about technical
terms.  Maybe I have a more rigid use of "concept" because I do not
regard it as synonymous to "technical term": Technical terms are just
normalized words as in a controlled language, whereas concepts result
from an abstraction process.  And I think to keep the destinction
between "concept" and "technical term" is important from a
methodological point of view.  If such a term is embedded in a
"norrower/broader term" hierarchy in a thesaurus --- as one would
expect --- one can of course navigate in this hierarchy as well,
keeping in mind that "narrower/broader term" is not the same relation
as "sub/super-concept" in a concept hierarchy.

So, w.r.t. the practical use of E55, I would argue to keep the system
as open as possible from a methodological point of view and not
exclude to take terms for E55 Types from thesauri of the kind
mentioned above from the very beginning.

>      Making an analogy with FRBRoo entities, the "E55 Type" is located at
> same level of "F21 Individual Work" (abstract entity, without symbols or
> names), and the "E44 Appellation" (or Exx Type Appellation") is located at
> same level of "F2 Expression" (symbolic entity).

If this was the idea of the authors of FRBRoo I must confess that I do
not share the --- in my view rather obsolete --- metaphysical
assumption of abstract entities without symbols or names.

Regards,
-- Guenther Goerz


>
> Joao Oliveira Lima
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Guenther Goerz <guenther.goerz at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Crm-sig mailing list
> > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> >
>
>



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list