Posted by Stephen Stead 18/7/2014
I would like to suggest the following revision to the scope note for E73 Information Object. Its intention is to specifically mention "named graphs" as being instances of E73 Information Object. As we look at implementation of the CRM it is becoming increasingly obvious that "named graphs" are going to be a particularly useful tool, it would therefore seem handy if we explicitly mentioned that they live in E73!
Best regards
SdS
Current Scope Note
E73 Information Object
Subclass of:
E89 Propositional Object E90 Symbolic Object
Superclass of:
E29 Design or Procedure
E31 Document
E33 Linguistic Object
E36 Visual Item
Scope note: This class comprises identifiable immaterial items, such as a poems, jokes, data sets, images, texts, multimedia objects, procedural prescriptions, computer program code, algorithm or mathematical formulae, that have an objectively recognizable structure and are documented as single units.
An E73 Information Object does not depend on a specific physical carrier, which can include human memory, and it can exist on one or more carriers simultaneously.
Instances of E73 Information Object of a linguistic nature should be declared as instances of the E33 Linguistic Object subclass. Instances of E73 Information Object of a documentary nature should be declared as instances of the E31 Document subclass. Conceptual items such as types and classes are not instances of E73 Information Object, nor are ideas without a reproducible expression.
Examples:
* image BM000038850.JPG from the Clayton Herbarium in London
* E. A. Poe's "The Raven"
* the movie "The Seven Samurai" by Akira Kurosawa
* the Maxwell Equations
Properties:
Revised Scope Note
E73 Information Object
Subclass of:
E89 Propositional Object E90 Symbolic Object
Superclass of:
E29 Design or Procedure
E31 Document
E33 Linguistic Object
E36 Visual Item
Scope note: This class comprises identifiable immaterial items, such as a poems, jokes, data sets, images, texts, multimedia objects, procedural prescriptions, computer program code, algorithm or mathematical formulae, that have an objectively recognizable structure and are documented as single units. The encoding structure known as a "named graph" also falls under this class, so that each "named graph" is an instance of an E73 Information Object.
An E73 Information Object does not depend on a specific physical carrier, which can include human memory, and it can exist on one or more carriers simultaneously.
Instances of E73 Information Object of a linguistic nature should be declared as instances of the E33 Linguistic Object subclass. Instances of E73 Information Object of a documentary nature should be declared as instances of the E31 Document subclass. Conceptual items such as types and classes are not instances of E73 Information Object, nor are ideas without a reproducible expression.
Examples:
* image BM000038850.JPG from the Clayton Herbarium in London
* E. A. Poe's "The Raven"
* the movie "The Seven Samurai" by Akira Kurosawa
* the Maxwell Equations
Properties:
The rest of the discussion you may find here
In 31st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG, ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 24th FRBR - CIDOC CRM, resolving this issue, the sig decided that Named Graphs should be regarded valid cases of E73 Information Object. Concept will be dealt with CRMInf. An example about AAT as LoD has been added to E73. It is needed to be checked with the proposed formalization of CRM.
Heraklion, Crete, October 2014
Posted by Martin 2/2/2015
CRM Inf I4 Proposition Set has the following scope note:
Scope note: This class comprises the sets of propositions that an I2 Belief is held about. It could be implemented as a named graph, a spreadsheet or any other structured data-set.
I believe this is not clear enough in contrast to E89 Propositional Object.
I propose:
Scope note: This class comprises the sets of formal, binary propositions that an I2 Belief is held about. It could be implemented as a named graph, a spreadsheet or any other structured data-set. Regardless the specific
syntax employed, the effective propositions it contains should be constituted by unambiguous identifiers and concepts of a formal ontology.
I'd like to revise:
Scope note: This class comprises the sets of formal, binary propositions that an I2 Belief is held about. It could be implemented as a named graph, a spreadsheet or any other structured data-set. Regardless the specific syntax employed, the effective propositions it contains should be constituted by unambiguous identifiers, concepts of a formal ontology and constructs of logic.
Posted by Carlo
On 3/2/2015 11:40 πμ, Carlo Meghini wrote:
> The scope notes of E89 Propositional Object say:
>
> This class comprises immaterial items, including but not limited to stories, plots, procedural prescriptions, algorithms, laws of physics or images that are, or represent in some sense, sets of propositions about ...
>
> so, there is already a notion for sets of propositions. On the other hand, there is already a notion for formal expressions (i.e. E90 Symbolic Object). So, to model sets of symbolic objects that are propositions and that can be true or false, I'd go by:
>
> - creating a sub-class of E90, say EX, whose instances are binary, formal propositions
>
> Then, sets of EX can be modelled as instances of E89 Propositional Object (unless you want a sub-class for them), that are connected by (the appropriate) partOf property to E89 Propositional Object, and we are done.
>
> Sorry if I got something wrong.
Posted by Martin 4/2/2015
I4 is meant to be this subclass of E90 and E89 : sets of symbolic objects that are propositions and that can be true or false. Since E73 is a subclass of E90 and E89 already, but not restricted to formal propositions in the narrower sense, I4 is subclass of E73 Information Object.
Also, E89 is meant much wider, such as the plot of a story etc.
So, I think with defining I4 as we did, we do exactly what you propose? The scope note is just meant to be
clear that propositions in I4 are restricted to a specific form.
So, I see your "EX" is just our "I4" ?
We may argue that "that an I2 Belief is held about" should be "that an I2 Belief can be held about".
What do you think?
By the way, we regard shorter scope notes not as better. To our experience they can cause a lot of ambiguity,
especially for newcomers, people from other disciplines and cultures. They may even appear as arrogant.
ISO insists on single phrase definitions. Therefore the ISO version splits the scope note into what ISO regards a definition and additional explanations. We try to avoid all ambiguities that may arise when coming from
different disciplines. Our default audience are scholars. Computer scientists should just not be mislead by the
text.
Posted by Simon Spero 4/2/2015
I think the use of "about" may be confusing (at least to me).
I've got a vague feeling that there might be some benefit in
(a) making explicit the quotational nature of the elements of a belief , in the way that the "(that <sentence>)" operator in IKL does.
(b) making explicit what may be inferred about what a Believer believes, based on set of believed sentences.
Doxastic logics (logics about belief) have many of the same problems as epistemic logics.
For example,
if Fred believes that "P" and
Fred believes that "Q"
it may not be the case that Fred believes that "P and Q", even though the latter is entailed by classical propositional logic.
CRM doesn't need the fancy stuff, but it might be good to make the rules a little bit more explicit (this seems to be the direction the edit is going).
Cyc has the useful concept of the propositional content of a work, which denoted the microtheory containing all the propositions expressed by the work. This seems to be close to what is being described here.
Posted by Martin on 4/2/2015
I think the use of "about" may be confusing (at least to me).
May be a question to clarify with native English speakers?
I've got a vague feeling that there might be some benefit in
(a) making explicit the quotational nature of the elements of a belief , in the way that the "(that <sentence>)" operator in IKL does.
How would you express that?
(b) making explicit what may be inferred about what a Believer believes, based on set of believed sentences.
Doxastic logics (logics about belief) have many of the same problems as epistemic logics.For example,
if Fred believes that "P" and
Fred believes that "Q"
it may not be the case that Fred believes that "P and Q", even though the latter is entailed by classical propositional logic.CRM doesn't need the fancy stuff, but it might be good to make the rules a little bit more explicit (this seems to be the direction the edit is going).
I agree with the problems, but I'd argue the intention of CRMInf is monitoring arguments, not commiting
to explicit rules. We take here a more empirical stance towards how scholars and scientists argue, and not
what rules could be machine-evaluated. First we need to document, then we can select what we can reason about. I hope I have interpreted correctly what you mean by "rules" ?
Cyc has the useful concept of the propositional content of a work, which denoted the microtheory containing all the propositions expressed by the work. This seems to be close to what is being described here.
Could you give us an explicit reference? I think we should make more references in our documents.
The 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting. The CRM-SIG reviewing the issue 252 changed the scope note of E73 Information Object and I4 Proposition Set. Also examples have been added to I4.
The issue is closed.
Oxford February 2015.