[Crm-sig] Scope note for E55 Type

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Oct 21 18:23:22 EEST 2008


Dear Christian-Emil,

I know the exercise is getting very tiring, but

I would follow Matthew here. Even though I agree generally with all what is said in
the scope note, I think the scope note itself should be very small and concise. It should
just say what the Type in the current paradigm is - something like: "the intension of a concept,
typically identified by a term, used to describe a refinement of the classification of an instance
of a CRM class." or so.
I would avoid the term 'subtyping' ("allows for additional refinement through
  sub-typing of the classes"), because it introduces new ambiguities of the same kind we have already discussed.

All other comments should go into the text in the introduction about types, latest from
"A type, that is, an instance of E55 Type can be interpreted in several ways. " on.
There we can discuss alternatives, and then state what the CRM actually models.

The reason I see not to put a class under the CRM class hierarchy, but to use an E55, is typically
because it does not introduce relevant relationships or is too fuzzy.

The term 'Type' in Natural History is actually a type of relationship, modelled in the CRM
as "taxonomic role" : "P136.1 in the taxonomic role: E55 Type" (holotype, lectotype etc.)

I'd suggest to arrange all this good thought in the introductory text about Types. Since our audience
is has often some philosophical understanding, I would rather make the duality you mention quite
explicit.

Matthew, how would you describe E55 Type in the scope note?

Best,

Martin

Dr Matthew Stiff wrote:
> Hi Christian (and all)
> 
>  
> 
> I was unable to be at the Athens meeting and, frustratingly, will be in 
> Jeddah when you meet in London (typical!). I wonder if it would be 
> possible to post the issue that this is addressing on the list? Having 
> read the original scope note and Christian’s amended version I am 
> concerned that the meaning of E55 Type is, if anything, becoming more 
> opaque. Christian is not to blame for this – The seeds of this were 
> already there in the original scope note. Having been responsible for 
> drafting a lot of these I am only too aware of the temptation to add 
> text to clarify ambiguities rather than seeing if the original text 
> could be rephrased to remove the problem. As a native English speaker I 
> am finding some of these scope notes increasingly difficult to 
> understand so I can only imagine how difficult it must be for non-native 
> speakers!
> 
>  
> 
> I think it might be better to return to first principles and write a 
> number of simple statements saying what E55 Type IS and IS NOT. We could 
> then use these as the basis for producing a scope note that could be 
> understood by an intelligent 12-year-old (well, ok, we could push this 
> to 16-year-old).
> 
>  
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
>  
> 
> Matthew
> 
>  
> 
> Dr Matthew Stiff
> 
> 19 Riverside Road
> 
> Oxford
> 
> OX2 0HT
> 
>  
> 
> (t)           +44 1865 425982
> 
> (m)         +44 7939 151510
> 
>  
> 
> 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


-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------
  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