[Crm-sig] Fwd: Re: Issue 383 Homework, addition
martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Nov 15 22:17:32 EET 2018
Continuing the question from my last message below:
Very large strings one would normally describe in a file and instantiate
E90 Symbolic Object or a subclass of it with the URL. However, the
question is, if the URL would indeed be a good persistent identifier,
since the URL stands for a physical location, albeit indirectly
addressed. The Linked Open Data community has not yet given satisfactory
answers for the long term validity of resolvable URIs. If the URL is not
a good identifier, another, primary URI should be chosen, and the
content found in the URL should be related to the primary URI as a
representative of the content of the symbolic object identified with the
I would like to discuss a new property,
PXXX has content representation
domain: E90 Symbolic Object
range: E90 Symbolic Object
Tentative scope note:
Scope note: This property associates an instance of E90 Symbolic Object
with another instance of E90 Symbolic Object (or any of its subclasses)
that represents completely the content of the former identically
concerning the the symbol set in which the former is defined and
nothing more. For instance, a text of Aristotle may be defined in terms
of the ancient Greek alphabet, paragraphs and section titles, but the
representing object may use some type phases and page layout. Metadata
in the range instance are not regarded as part of the content.
What about introductions, foot notes etc.?
Can someone make a scenario with a real canonical instance of a text of
Aristotle or Platon, with indexed phrases, and propose how the text
itself should be identified, possibly independent from spelling variants?
Another case: I submit to Springer a paper in .doc and they create a
pdf, and a Journal image. How do we define "my paper" regardless these
In the worst case, we would need yet another node in order to specify
the part of the file that is the defining text.
Further, P165 incorporates is from information object to symbolic
object, hence not compatible.
Another argument being, that an ontological link from E90 to E90 doesn't
make sense. If the target should be a URL, we may regard this as an
implementation level question.
On 11/6/2018 4:46 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear All,
> I had sent the below as new issue, but it is indeed the answer to
> Issue 383.
> The question is, how to deal with a file, which is more specific in
> content, such as an MS Word, but represents the character sequence
> that defines the content of the respective E90. Is is "is incorporated
> in", or a subproperty of it?
> On 9/19/2018 11:09 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
>> Here my scope note:
>> Pxxx has symbolic content
>> Domain: E90 Symbolic Object
>> Range:E62 String
>> Quantification:many to many (0,n:0,n) ??
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig