[Crm-sig] Scope note for E55 Type
martin
martin at ics.forth.gr
Wed Oct 22 14:13:31 EEST 2008
I absolutely like that.
Now we need a new version of the introductory text on Types.
Martin
Christian-Emil Ore wrote:
> Dear all,
> I have no problem in this criticism. I absolutely agree that a scope
> note should be short and easy to understand. I tried to unify Guenther’s
> and Martin’s rather abstract definitions.
>
> (As many native non-English-user I am used to the universal language of
> science - broken English. Subtleties and fine nuances should be avoided
> in the scope notes. They are usually overlooked and lost in translation.)
>
> For most museum documentalists E55 Type it is sufficient to explain
> that E55 Type corresponds to controlled vocabularies and thesauri.
> Museum professionals are not realy interested in formal logic. The E55
> Type should be given a scope note ewhich is simple and easy to
> understand perhaps not for 12 years old, but for the majority of our
> intended user group. The discussion of logic systems, deduction and
> reasoning can be placed in a chapter in the introduction named "CRM,
> logic and computer assisted reasoning".
>
> Christian-Emil
>
> Scope note
> The E55 Type comprises terms from thesauri and controlled vocabularies
> used to characterise and classify instances of CRM classes. Instance of
> E55 Type represent concepts (universals) in contrast to instances of E41
> Appellation which are used to name individuals.
>
> E55 Type is the CRM’s interface to domain specific ontologies and
> thesauri. Such can be represented in the CRM as sub class hierarchies
> under E55 type possibly with additional properties.
>
> (some examples)
>
>
> On 21.10.2008 17:23, martin wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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