[Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Jul 31 11:42:28 EEST 2014

Dear Christian-Emil,

On 31/7/2014 10:03 πμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> This is an interesting discussion, but somewhat distant from the question "Should the scope note for E73 Information Object be extend with an example showing that a named graph in rdf represents an instance of E73 Information Object?". In my view this is unproblematic.
> Propositional objects and hence information objects are described in the CRM as: " This class comprises immaterial items, including but not limited to stories, plots, procedural prescriptions, algorithms, laws of physics or images that are, or represent in some sense, sets of propositions about real or imaginary things and that are documented as single units or serve as topic of discourse".  
> Every instance of the class(es) represents a proposition/statement constructed by a human. (Thus it is not a Platonic object existing before and  independently of humans for those interested in the formalist<->Platonist debate) . Even in mathematics important proofs are not necessarily carried out in all formalistic details. The four colour problem was partly solved by computerized proofs, but nobody cared to proof the correctness of the programs.
Yes, context cannot be ignored. We have to perceive all information as
ways to communicate about trust in knowledge between humans.
> RDF(S): In principle (and in some implementations) rdf triple stores are basically equal to a relational database with one table with three (four for named graphs?)  columns. 
"Quad Stores", yes.
> With the old Z39.50 protocol added one would have a variant of linked data or semantic web. So there is nothing new here but a much more handy language to express pieces information and how they interlink. From a logician point of view RDF(S) is an implementation /interpretation technique on the model level. 
> So what is meant by 'classic" in the "RDF(S) is based on classic logic"?.
As I understand, relational databases do not know links (joins are
arbitrary), subsumption and inheritance.This and the Relational logic
are described in FOL?
> C-E
>> 	Also, to clarify: RDF and RDFS are based in classical logic, as is OWL,
>> which is the description logic SROIQ(D).
>> 	RDF triples are ground terms that, if accepted, are axioms; if there are
>> logical inconsistencies this inconsistency will cause clashes (most OWL
>> reasoners are tableau based).
>> Yes! The implicit logic in RDF/RDFS is however minimal and categorical:
>> subsumption and inheritance of properties. Applied to the concepts in the
>> CRM only, we would not question these on a regular base. To overcome
>> practically the intrinsic fuzziness of the concepts in the CRM, we normally
>> adopt a "recall over precision" attitude in the definition, classification and
>> querying (everything that "could be an E7 Activity" should be classified as an
>> E7 Activity).
>> All other theories expressed in RDF do not need to be logically consistent in a
>> CRM implementation (multiple fathers etc. ;-) ).


 Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
 Research Director             |  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)   |
               N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,             |
                GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece               |
             Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list