[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: symbolic content

Richard Light richard at light.demon.co.uk
Mon Sep 17 22:09:20 EEST 2018


Rob,

Absolutely.  So now we need to draft the text to describe this property,
in suitably generalized terms, for the CRM, and then update our RDF
documentation to say exactly how it is to be used in that context. 
Perhaps we should start with some examples?

Richard

On 17/09/2018 19:49, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>  
>
> Thank you, Martin! I think this is exactly what we need ☺
>
>  
>
> Rob
>
>  
>
> *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin
> Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
> *Date: *Friday, September 14, 2018 at 10:23 AM
> *To: *"crm-sig at ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> *Subject: *[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: symbolic content
>
>  
>
> Dear All,
>
> I propose a new property of Symbolic Object : "has symbolic content :
> String" , in RDFS subproperty of rdfs:value.
>
> The "level of symbolic specificity" by which the String is interpreted
> should conform to the type of the Symbolic Object.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 9/14/2018 7:54 PM, Richard Light wrote:
>
>      
>
>     On 13/09/2018 20:57, Martin Doerr wrote:
>
>         Dear Richard,
>
>
>
>                 What we need, to my opinion, is a property of Symbolic
>                 Object we may call it "has symbolic content" or "has
>                 symbolic content inline" or anything better, which
>                 defines that the symbolic content *is identical to*
>                 the Literal, *abstracted *to the "level of symbolic
>                 specificity" that the Literal implies and that
>                 conforms to the identity condition of the Symbolic
>                 Object, i.e., characters of a certain script, or
>                 whatever. That would make the meaning of the "value"
>                 unambiguous.
>
>             Again, I'm in complete agreement with this line of
>             thought.  One decision we should make is whether this
>             property forms part of the generic CRM framework, or if it
>             is to be an implementation-specific property which only
>             appears in our RDF implementation of the CRM.  My instinct
>             is for it to go into the CRM proper: the treatment of
>             Symbolic Object and its subclasses would I think be made
>             clearer by the addition of this property.
>
>         For CRM proper!
>
>     OK: perhaps we should start a new issue to address this?
>
>
>
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
>  Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
>                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr <mailto: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           |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> 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/20180917/4be65417/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list