Dear Robert,

On 11/6/2018 9:00 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

 

Thank you for pushing this forward, Martin!

 

Quantification wise, I would be in favor of 0,1 : 0,1.

I prefer 0,1:0,n or 0,n:0,n

 

If the structure of the set of symbols changed, then it would be a different symbolic object according to my understanding of E90:

 

>  … identifiable symbols and any aggregation of symbols …  that have an objectively recognizable structure and

that are documented as single units.

Correct. The question is, if we encounter different representations, for instance one giving a text "hello world" in Latin 1, and another in ASCII, but the E90 instance is of type Latin characters only, or if you write my name DOERR or DÖRR, both regarded by German authorities as identical variants representing the "Umlaut" OE or Ö.  Of course, in that case, having both representations would be redundant. In that case, 0:n is more tolerant.
Another opinion being, that one string is enough to define the E90. Then, 0,1.

 

Similarly, if the same string was used by different Symbolic Objects, then it seems like they would actually be the same symbolic object (or you would instead use two strings with the same data).

This is a long debated question. In most cases, this appears as reasonable, but we do have cases in which the identity of the E90, seen as a message in the sense of Claude Shannon, is bound to the "sender". Discussing the sense of E35 Title, it appears that we cannot take the identity of the Title detached from the thing it was given to. This creates a precedent for the latter interpretation.

As a general principle, a 1:1 dependency is a thing subject to the suspicion of a hidden identity. To be on the safe side, I would rather not identify the E90 with the content model.

Two strings with the same data to be different is a (good) implementation choice of RDF, which assigns the identity to the link rather to the string, exactly in order to distinguish where the message comes from. If two strings with the same data are regarded as different, then we have actually a 0,x:0,n model in the ontology.

(And in the RDF projection this makes no difference, as literal values do not have their own separate identity)

 

For the examples, I would replace the Little Red Riding Hood example with one that is complete, to avoid confusion with the scope note requirement of being represented completely.

How about:

 

>  The Accession Number (E42) of the J. Paul Getty Museum’s “Abduction of Europa” (E22) _has symbolic content_ “95.PB.7“

Good!

 

 

And for the file question, do you mean that the symbolic object is the MS Word file, which has a representable set of (binary) symbols,

No

or that the symbolic object is text which is incorporated within the file, but not verbatim (as the characters in the (e.g.) paragraph are likely to be represented in the file using very a different structure).

Right.

Best,

martin

 

Rob

 

 

From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <martin@ics.forth.gr>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 6:46 AM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>, Chrysoula Bekiari <bekiari@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue 383 Homework

 

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) ??

 In CRM RDFS   subproperty of: rdfs:value

 

Scope note:      This property associates  an instance of E90 Symbolic Object with a complete, identifying representation of its content in the form of an instance of E62 String. This property only applies to instances of E90 Symbolic Object that can be represented completely in this form. The representation may be more specific than the symbolic level defining the identity condition of the represented. This depends on the type of the symbolic object represented. For instance, if a name has type "Modern Greek character sequence", it may be represented in a loss-free Latin transcription, meaning however the sequence of Greek letters. As another example, if the represented object has type "English words sequence", American English or British English spelling variants may be chosen to represent the English word "colour" without defining a different symbolic object. If a name has type "European traditional name", no particular string may define its content.

 

 

Examples:       

 

* The materials description (E33) of the painting (E22)  _has symbolic content_ “Oil, French Watercolors on Paper, Graphite and Ink on Canvas, with an Oak frame.”

* The title (E35) of Einstein’s 1915 text (E73) _has symbolic content_ “Relativity, the Special and the General Theory“

* The story of Little Red Riding Hood (E33) _has symbolic content_ “Once upon a time there lived in a certain village …”

* The inscription (E34) on Rijksmuseum object SK-A-1601 (E22) _has symbolic content_ “B”

 



On 9/17/2018 10:38 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

 

Examples I have a lot of!

 

 

How about …

 

* The materials description (E33) of the painting (E22)  _has symbolic content_ “Oil, French Watercolors on Paper, Graphite and Ink on Canvas, with an Oak frame.”

* The title (E35) of Einstein’s 1915 text (E73) _has symbolic content_ “Relativity, the Special and the General Theory“

* The story of Little Red Riding Hood (E33) _has symbolic content_ “Once upon a time there lived in a certain village …”

* The inscription (E34) on Rijksmuseum object SK-A-1601 (E22) _has symbolic content_ “B”

   

Rob

 

 

From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
Date: Monday, September 17, 2018 at 12:09 PM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: symbolic content

 

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@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <martin@ics.forth.gr>
Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 10:23 AM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@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@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@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

 

--
Richard Light




_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@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@ics.forth.gr  
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl