[Crm-sig] Issuse 260 -- homeworks

outlook_445A521EFDD60BD3 at outlook.com outlook_445A521EFDD60BD3 at outlook.com
Mon Mar 27 00:06:19 EEST 2017

To All and especially Martin and Oyvind,

Although not specifically germane to the "rights" conversation of the moment, I would like to contribute a further refining dimension to Martin's and Oyvind's discussion about Claude Shannon's definition of 'information' as a 'message' with a 'known provenance', that is, the distinction between the tuple of <message, sender> vis a vis <message>.

The notion of fact/assertion (let's not quibble about the truth-value of a statement at this point, only its existence as a 'parole' -- spoken/written linguistic utterance) is incomplete without the 'sender' aspect to the assertion. This insight is fundamental to FactMiners' development of the MAGAZINE #GTS (Ground-Truth Storage) format as an extension of PRImA's PAGE #GTS format.

An often unspoken assumption about an historical document -- a book or monograph, for example -- is that its message/content 'speaks' with the voice of its author or coordinated group of authors. This notion of unified voice is completely inappropriate as an assumption about the content of a commercial magazine (or for most academic/research journals for that matter) where multiple disconnected 'message-senders' have equal access to the 'channel' of the magazine's content.

The same 'fact' (assertion) made by a -- in our case of Softalk magazine -- a software product-publisher in an advertisement in an issue of a serial publication/magazine is completely different than the same fact/assertion contributed by an authoritative reviewer in the same issue of the magazine. The credibility of that assertion is further reducible if the same fact/assertion is made in the issue by a previously unknown author of a letter to the editor of the publication.

This recognition of Shannon's message/sender tuple is the basis for FactMiners' desire to create the MAGAZINE #GTS format as one with integrated complex document structure and content depiction models derived from a #cidocCRM/FRBRoo/PRESSoo ontological 'stack'. 

Happy-Healthy Vibes, 
-: Jim :-
    Jim Salmons and Timlynn Babitsky
    Twitter: @Jim_Salmons, @TimlynnBabitsky, @FactMiners, @Softalk_Apple
    Cell: 720-519-6317
    www.FactMiners.org (Our #CitizenScience project)
    www.SoftalkApple.com (Our #DigitalHistory project)
    www.medium.com/@Jim_Salmons/ (my #CognitiveComputing/#DigitalHumanities articles)
    www.medium.com/@TimlynnBabitsky (her #CitizenJournalism/#DigitalHistory articles)

-----Original Message-----
From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Øyvind Eide
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 12:29 PM
To: martin <martin at ics.forth.gr>
Cc: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issuse 260 -- homeworks

Dear Martin,

this is dangerous territory. Do we need to go there? We may have to open up all sorts of boxes including those owned by language philosophers and semioticians. 

An utterance is made by someone, surely. But is a title an utterance? It is not purely either or, but is it not more langue than parole? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_and_parole

I think one can find many different views on what information is in the humanities and many of them would be quite different from Shannon. Personally, I think thinking based on dialogism makes a lot of sense. 

Do we have to enter this territory? Do we need to express opinions on these things in CRM? 



> 24. mar. 2017 kl. 12.50 skrev martin <martin at ics.forth.gr>:
> Dear Oeyvind,
> I agree with the scope note, given the interpretation we decided. I 
> wonder however if there is a deeper issue here:
> In Germany there exists the saying that dying Goethe uttered "mehr Licht" ("more light"). I reused this proposition yesterday, because I wanted to read a newspaper.
> Claude Shannon defined information as a message with a known provenance, which is the most accepted theory in computer science.
> That would mean that the identity of an Information Object is a tuple <content,sender>, rather than <content>.
> If we accept that, we enter another hell of arguments about what the identity of the sender is. That is easy for a Title, but quite tricky for the non-smoking symbol.
[[[snip rest of the conversation, see the archive for prior conversation details]]]

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list