[Crm-sig] Scope note for E55 Type

Christian-Emil Ore c.e.s.ore at edd.uio.no
Tue Oct 21 17:16:49 EEST 2008

Yes, I mean 'logic system', which not always seems to be logical.

On 21.10.2008 16:10, Stephen Stead wrote:
> Looks good but should it be " a logic system" rather than " a logical
> system".
> Rgds
> SdS
> Stephen Stead
> Tel +44 20 8668 3075 
> Mob +44 7802 755 013
> E-mail steads at paveprime.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On
> Behalf Of Christian-Emil Ore
> Sent: 19 October 2008 20:42
> To: crm-sig
> Subject: [Crm-sig] Scope note for E55 Type
> Dear all,
> In the SIG meeting at CIDOC 2008 in Athens I was asked to write a draft 
> for a new scope note for E55 Type and adjust the paragraphs about types 
> in the introduction. Yuo will find my suggestion for the scope note 
> below. I postpone the intro part until a decision in taken on the scope 
> note.
> The scope note is based on the original and on Guenther's suggestion 
> from May. The intention has been to make the scope not more explicit on 
> E55 Type's function as an interface to external classification systems 
> and to avoid the use of the term 'meta class'. In my opinion a type in 
> the CRM is a term, concept or predicate. It is not equal to the set 
> denoted by this term. Martin pointed out in an email that there is very 
> little difference between the interpretation of a CRM class and this 
> interpretation of a type, eg 'information carrier' (CRM class) and 
> 'wineclass' type.
> I agree that any CRM class (as a concept) and and instance of E55 have 
> the same extensional intentional set/term duality. A difference is that 
> we do not have any mechanisms inside CRM (if we do not follow the 
> suggestion from Vladimir Ivanov) to speak about a CRM class as a whole 
> as we can with respect to an instance of E55. So even though 'wineglass' 
>   seen from a bird's view of the model is the same beast as 'information 
> carrier' (hypothetical sets of something), there is a difference in the 
> model qua a formal system.
> Regards,
> CHristian-Emil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> NEW TEXT E55 Scope Note
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> E55
> Type
> Subclass of:    E28 Conceptual Object
> Superclass of:  E56 Language
>                  E57 Material
>                  E58 Measurement Unit
> Scope note:
> The class E55 Type comprises concepts (universals) and hence provides an 
> interface to domain specific concepts external to the CRM.  In this 
> fashion, a connection between the CRM and a particular (external) domain 
> concept as a subclass of E55 Type can be established.
> This hierarchical relation allows for additional refinement through 
> sub-typing of the classes (of the CRM) which represent important 
> typological distinctions but where the given user group does not 
> consider it necessary to give a further analysis of the classes by 
> extending the CRM with new sub classes. The interpretation of these 
> sub-types is based on the agreement of the specific groups.
> A type, that is, an instance of E55 Type can be interpreted in several 
> ways. It can be seen as a term in a thesaurus or as predicate with a 
> free variable in a logical system. The instances of  the CRM classes 
> having a given type (e.g. through  P2 has type) at a given point in time 
> form a set or a class. However, this class or set is not identical to 
> the type.
> E55 Type reflects the characteristic use of terms like "Object Type", 
> "Category", "Classification" etc in museum documentation. Such fields 
> are used for terms that declare that the object belongs to a particular 
> category or class of items.  It has however nothing to do with the term 
> `type' in Natural History (cf. E83 Type Creation) which is a E24 
> Physical Man-Made Thing (eg an dried insect on a needle) . But E55 Type 
> includes the notion of a `taxon' which are concepts.
> Ideally, (external) subclasses of the class E55 Type should be organised 
> into thesauri, with scope notes, illustrations, etc. to clarify their 
> meaning.  In general, it is expected that different domains and cultural 
> groups will develop different thesauri in parallel.  Consistent 
> reasoning on the expansion of subterms used in a thesaurus is possible 
> insofar as it conforms to both the classes and the hierarchies of the 
> CRM.  E56 Language, E57 Material and E58 Measurement Unit have been 
> defined explicitly as elements of the E55 Type hierarchy because they 
> are used categorically in the CRM without reference to instances of 
> them, i.e. the CRM does not foresee the description of instances of 
> instances of them, e.g., the property instance `P45 consists of : gold' 
> does not refer to a particular instance of gold.
> _______________________________________________
> 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