[Crm-sig] Homework: issue 230
richard at light.demon.co.uk
Fri Feb 6 21:07:26 EET 2015
On 06/02/2015 18:11, Øyvind Eide wrote:
> If one source refers to one object, then it is not a co-reference.
> Then it is a reference.
> Co-reference is there to say that you know (for some reason you may
> specify if you want to) that two or more word/phrases refer to the
> same real-world person. The latter can be specififed or it can be left
> I fail to see why co-reference should solve the problem of single
> propositional objects referring to real world objects — we already had
> mecanisms for that.
OK, here is an example. This section of Linked Data text from the
is, in my opinion, talking about this non-information object:
How would you model that in the CRM?
> I have a feeling that the problems documented in the long paper would
> apply to single references too if the target is not modelled within
> your information system. This may be linked to fundamental problems
> with the whole linked data paradigm. But this is just a feeling so I
> have to flesh it out more to say something evidence based on it.
This is an aspect of the issue which I don't understand. If you can't
(knowingly) decide that you trust an external Linked Data resource and
are allowed to make assertions which touch on the entities which it
defines, what hope is there for the whole Linked Data project? (Or, if
this constraint is specific to the CRM, then the same point applies more
locally. :-) )
> I may have misunderstood you question so please use smaller spoons if
> I did!
> 6. feb. 2015 kl. 18:08 skrev Richard Light <richard at light.demon.co.uk
> <mailto:richard at light.demon.co.uk>>:
>> If I have interpreted your longer paper correctly, that means that
>> the whole co-reference mechanism that the CRM has erected fails to
>> address the practical requirement which I would have. That is, the
>> ability for me to indicate that a word or phrase in a source document
>> refers (in my opinion), to a specified real-world person (or other
>> non-information object).
>> Have I got this right, and, if so, is there a CRM mechanism which
>> /does /allow me to make this kind of assertion?
>> Best wishes,
>> On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two
>>> * New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep
>>> semantic web complexity out of the CRM. Thanks to Gerald for input.
>>> * A draft for a document describing the complexity left out of the
>>> scope notes, based on Martin's previous scope notes and input from
>>> Arianna (but no responsibility on any of them for the result!). This
>>> document could be developed into a technical paper referred to from
>>> CRM, to an article, or both.
>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>> *Richard Light*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig