[Crm-sig] about types draft

João Oliveira Lima joaoli13 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 6 14:16:12 EET 2008


Dear Guenther Goerz,

     I fully agree with you in the several points, like: "concepts" and
"technical terms" are disjoint classes.

     The point is: the "E55 Type" class isA "E28 Conceptual Object". The
CIDOC CRM ontology allows all classes/instances to be associated with
multiple types and names (properties of E1 Entity). In my point of view, the
correct place of "Technical Terms" is under "E75 Conceptual Object
Appellation" class (direct subclass of E44 Appellation).

     The new standards for thesaurus, like the British BS 8723 (
http://www.iskouk.org/presentations/will_21072008.pdf , see slide #2) and
W3C SKOS (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-primer-20080829/), have the
"concept" (and not the name, label or technical term) as the basic unit of
organization.

     The BS 8723 (and ISO 2788, also) identifies 3 specializations of
hierarchical relationship (BT/NT) between ThesaurusConcept instances
(see slide #6): BTG/NTG (class/specie), BTP/NTP (whole-part), BTI/NTI
(class-instance). I agree with you that ""narrower/broader term" is not the
same relation as "sub/super-concept" in a concept hierarchy". But, the
BTG/NTG relationship is equivalent to super/sub-Concept relationship.

Regards,

Joao Oliveira Lima



On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Guenther Goerz <guenther.goerz at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20081106/096c127a/attachment.htm 


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list