[Crm-sig] Homework: issue 230

Richard Light richard at light.demon.co.uk
Sat Feb 7 22:11:58 EET 2015

On 07/02/2015 09:42, Øyvind Eide wrote:
> Dear Richard, and all,
> To try to clarify in the light of the morning, there are (as I see it) 
> two separate issues:
> 1. A simplification of the scope notes for E91 Co-Reference 
> Assignment. This is a topic of the meeting next week. It would be good 
> if you could comment if:
> a) the changes in scope notes introduces any new problems or solves 
> old problems
> b) there are problems in E91 which was not solved by the proposed changes.
> 2. A document about (co)referencing. I would surely be happy to 
> discuss that (at length!) but it is kept outside of CRM on purpose. It 
> is a discussion document, not a part of the standard. Once finalised, 
> it could be referred to from the standard if we so wish. As you can 
> see it is still in draft form.

While the document is indeed separate, a key conclusion from it is 
included within the revised E91 scope notes:

The use of /P155 has co-reference target/ is limited to entities within 
the knowledge base in which the E91 Co-Reference Assignment is found. 
This is because the E91 Co-Reference Assignment is making explicit the 
world view of the E39 Actor carrying out the assignment and this world 
view is expressed as such only within that specific knowledge base.

I'm not clear at what level of abstraction we are meant to interpret 
this statement.  The CRM is meant to be "a formal ontology which can be 
expressed in terms of logic or a suitable knowledge representation 
language".  So presumably "knowledge base" in the above text is meant in 
an equally abstract sense.  Surely, in that abstract sense, every 
assertion that any Actor makes ought to be expressed in terms which they 
understand, i.e. terms from within their "specific knowledge base".  
Otherwise they are just blathering on about stuff of which they know 
naught.  And if all we are saying is that assertions should relate to 
entities which fall within the knowledge base of the Actor making them, 
then why is that so particularly true of co-reference assignments that 
the point has to be laboured here?  Why is it less true of, say, Type 

If, on the other hand, this statement is meant to be about Semantic Web 
systems, then (a) I would probably still disagree with the need for it, 
but (b) I would argue that it is out of scope in the core CRM document.


> Also remember the construct:
> E89 Propositional Object —> P67 refers to (is referred to by) —> 
> E1 CRM Entity
> which can be used for reference without the co. The latter will easily 
> introduce implicit co-reference. E91 is for explicit co-reference. I 
> would be happy to go on about the difference (and can do it if it 
> helps) but now my train is arriving and I have to do other things.
> I hope this helps to focus the disagreements,
> Øyvind
> 6. feb. 2015 kl. 20:55 skrev Øyvind Eide <lister at oeide.no 
> <mailto:lister at oeide.no>>:
>> 6. feb. 2015 kl. 19:07 skrev Richard Light <richard at light.demon.co.uk 
>> <mailto:richard at light.demon.co.uk>>:
>>> 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 specified or it can be 
>>>> left undefined.
>>>> 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 
>>> recently-opened EEBO:
>>> http://data.modes.org.uk/TEI-P5/EEBO-TCP/id/A01483.d1e2619
>>> is, in my opinion, talking about this non-information object:
>>> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick
>>> How would you model that in the CRM?
>> I would say the two are propositional objects co-referring. No problem.
>>>> 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. :-) )
>> Sure you can trust something external to your infomration system. As, 
>> for instance, a propositional object.
>> I am afraid we may be talking past each other but it may be too late 
>> for me to see how…
>> Best,
>> Øyvind
>>> Richard
>>>> I may have misunderstood you question so please use smaller spoons 
>>>> if I did!
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Øyvind
>>>> 6. feb. 2015 kl. 18:08 skrev Richard Light 
>>>> <richard at light.demon.co.uk <mailto:richard at light.demon.co.uk>>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 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,
>>>>> Richard
>>>>> On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of 
>>>>>> two things:
>>>>>> * 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.
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Øyvind
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>>>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> *Richard Light*
>>> -- 
>>> *Richard Light*
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

*Richard Light*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20150207/a4fb58cf/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list