[Crm-sig] Issue 230 Co-reference

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Wed Mar 26 21:26:23 EET 2014


Dear All,

Here my homework:


      E91 Co-Reference Assignment

Subclass of:E13 Attribute Assignment

Scope note:This class comprises actions of making the assertion whether 
two or more particular instances of E89 Propositional Object refer to 
the same instance of E1 CRM Entity. The assertion is based on the 
assumption that this was an implicit fact being made explicit by this 
assignment. Use of this class allows for the full description of the 
context of this assignment. (MD will write an extension about the levels 
of belief)

A co-reference assertion may admit a certain degree or strength of 
belief, such as "possibly", "most likely" etc. This can be modelled 
using the property /P2 has type/ with a suitable terminology. However, 
this degree of belief will be common to all statement asserted by one 
instance of E91 Co-Reference Assignment. Otherwise, the assertion must 
be broken down into a suitable number of instances with different 
degrees of belief.

If there exists a document describing particular evidence, this can be 
referred to by using /P used specific object/. There may nothing more be 
known about the instance of E1 CRM Entity to which the described 
statements are assumed to refer to than the facts expressed by these 
very statements.

Frequently, scholars may like to contradict to a co-reference statement 
or point to frequent confusions. This can be modelled using the property 
/P154 <#_P154_assigned_non>//assigned non co-reference to./

The property /P155 <#_P155_has_co-reference>//has co-reference 
target/allows for associating an ???

//


In the end, I got confused: The range of P155 can be interpreted as a 
URI used within the same knowledge base as the instance of E91. Then, it 
would correspond to a co-reference between some text element and the 
knowledge base in which we implement the CRM, the "local truth".
In that case, also one instance of P153 would make sense, even two 
instances of P155 only.
In case we talk about Linked Open Data, the issue becomes more obscure. 
We could regard the co-reference to be between some text element and the 
document the URI resolves into.
If however someone uses this very URI in another context, the question 
of co-reference is again there.

It appears as if we need a construct to refer to the use of a URI within 
a knowledge base or RDF document as an instance of Propositional Object. 
If we follow this line, then the interpretation of P155 pointing to a 
"self co-reference" would be consistent, and any other
meaning of referring to a URI would need a contextualization of the URI 
to be discussed.

Opinions?

Best,

Martin

-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------
  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           |
--------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20140326/7c5038c1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list