[Crm-sig] about types draft

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Nov 6 23:49:43 EET 2008

Dear Guenther,

Since our Group has a background in thesaurus management systems, I can only report
that thesauri using broader-narrower terms without an explicit associated notion of concept
come up with strange work-arounds, for instance, "orange" appearing in two hierarchies,
color and fruits, without being identical (example from a real system), whatever that means.

In the end, there seems to be an implicit notion of concept, be it by restricting
ambiguities by the implicit context.

We do not aim with the CRM property P127 has broader term (has narrower term) at other
semantics than BTG, such as parthood, geographical inclusion, contextual association etc.

We do not aim at describing "orange" as narrower term of fruit and color simultaneously, because it
makes no sense. There is no real sense of compatibility to achieve with such systems.

Any good dictionary deals with sense disambiguation. So, I do not see a point to make
an ontological model, i.e. a part of the CRM, of an unreflected practice to deal with terms.
So, I prefer not to regard instances of E55 Type as terms in the lectical sense, but rather
to regard terms as Appellations.



Guenther Goerz wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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