[Crm-sig] About ... entity of Type?

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Jan 6 21:15:22 EET 2022


Dear George,

We use the “type" because it implies necessarily if it is a perdurant or 
endurant, person etc. If it does not, it is ill-defined, and has no 
place in a Thesaurus (see the AAT). If the categories of a thesaurus fit 
the CRM is a mapping problem.

No problem for retrieval at all. Just a programmers job.

Place types are relatively rare, such as "river" "lake", "city". The 
UMLS system e.g., listed some decade ago I think 10 or 20 million types, 
but less than 100 properties, corresponding to at most 200 classes. 
Therefore, P2 is not "cheap", but it does never replace meaningful 
properties.

Best,

Martin

On 1/6/2022 2:10 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
> Dear Martin,
>
> I'm glad to hear you have encountered such cases as well and find it a 
> potentially good path to explore. I find myself in a conundrum 
> thinking about (my own) proposal because of the vagueness of the word 
> 'entity'.
>
> What I find typical in many modelling exercises regarding bibliography 
> is that aboutness can be about the following real world, particular 
> things:
>
> subject - E55
> geographic location / place - E53
> person / corporation - E39
>
> So already there is typically some breakdown of aboutness into 
> different main kinds of real, particular things that a work can be about.
>
> When I reflect on the property 'represents entity of type', the 
> examples are all of endurants. This may be an accident but it makes me 
> wonder about whether a new specialization of aboutness to refer to 
> 'things of type' would best follow this general pattern (the entity 
> could be a perdurant, endurant, place etc.) or if the property would 
> better be more specialized. (is about temporal event of type, is about 
> persistent item of type, is about place of type).
>
> It just occurs to me that in the context of retrieval if the property 
> were not more specific to perdurants / endurants etc. then it could be 
> quite difficult to sort out if you want to find works about events of 
> type vs works about things of type vs works about places of type etc. 
> This is not a problem when the aboutness property is about a 
> particular because we can use the class to differentiate. 'Given me 
> E73 about E39' automatically culls the data down to the aboutness 
> regarding actors. If the new property pointed to E55, then we would 
> not have this facility.
>
So... hopefully still a good idea but seems to have some complications 
to be thought through.
>
> Best,
>
> George
>
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 6:43 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
> <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
>
>     Dear George,
>
>     I think this is a very good idea. There are thousands of
>     archaeological publications listing items etc. of certain types,
>     often with reference to museums keeping them, but library practice
>     will only register overall aboutness. Museum records cite such
>     publications explicitly, but the inverse has never been exploited
>     systematically.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     martin
>
>     On 12/14/2021 6:55 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
>>     better phrasing, 'about a particular thing that is known
>>     categorically'
>>
>>     Eg Sales Record about 'Sale Event'
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:53 PM George Bruseker
>>     <george.bruseker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>         Dear all,
>>
>>         Recently work is on-going on a new property 'represents thing
>>         of type' which is distinct from 'represents' (again that
>>         particular vs categorical distinction).
>>
>>         https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-476-pxx-represents-entity-of-type
>>
>>         I am confronted with cases of an information object
>>         being about not a particular thing but a category of thing...
>>         in my case event types but I guess it could be object types.
>>         Of course the existing 'about' property is sufficient but it
>>         doesn't allow to differentiate that it is not just a type but
>>         about an as yet unknown X which was of type Y... It seems to
>>         me similar to the other new property we are working on already.
>>
>>         Does anybody else have cases like this? Any interest in a new
>>         parallel property like that OR a solution that requires no
>>         new properties but also doesn't require semantic back flips
>>         to understand?
>>
>>         Best,
>>
>>         George
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Crm-sig mailing list
>>     Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>     http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>     -- 
>     ------------------------------------
>       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,
>       GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
>       
>       Vox:+30(2810)391625
>       Email:martin at ics.forth.gr   
>       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
>


-- 
------------------------------------
  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,
  GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
  
  Vox:+30(2810)391625
  Email:martin at ics.forth.gr   
  Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20220106/bd79eb63/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list