[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