E28 Examples

posted by Robert Sanderson on 6/9/2017

Dear all,

The final two examples of E28 Conceptual Object are:

* ‘Maxwell equations’ [preferred subject access point from LCSH,
      http://lccn.loc.gov/sh85082387, as of 19 November 2012]
* ‘Equations, Maxwell’ [variant subject access point, from the same source]

Is this meant to imply that these are /different/ E28s? The example was clearly explicitly chosen, so I wonder what it was meant to demonstrate, as I would have expected these to be two different Appellations for the same Conceptual Object.

Thanks for any clarifications,

Posted by Steve on 6/9/2017

Robert
I believe you are correct. They are different appellations of the same conceptual object. I think that the idea was to show that it was the E28 not the name that we were interested in. It obviously fails the usability test! Perhaps we could run the two examples together and say:-
‘Maxwell equations’ [preferred subject access point from LCSH, http://lccn.loc.gov/sh85082387, as of 19 November 2012] also known as ‘Equations, Maxwell’ [variant subject access point, from the same source]

Posted by Martin on 6/9/2017

Dear All,

Single quotes are consistently used throughout the text to denote strings, and not informal naming of things. E90 is a subclass of E28, and E41 subclass of E90, and therefore both strings are examples of E28, by virtue of being E90.

Obviously, the clarifying subclass is missing. I propose the examples to be:

§  Beethoven’s “Ode an die Freude” (Ode to Joy) (E73)

§  the definition of “ontology” in the Oxford English Dictionary (E73)

§  the knowledge about the victory at Marathon carried by the famous runner (E89)

§  ‘Maxwell equations’ [preferred subject access point from LCSH, (E41)

         http://lccn.loc.gov/sh85082387, as of 19 November 2012]

§  ‘Equations, Maxwell’ [variant subject access point, from the same source] (E41)

§  Maxwell's equations (E89)

§ The encoding of Maxwells equations as in
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Maxwell'sEqua… (E73)
The point with the Maxwell Equations is that they have an exact logical identity regardless the notation. It was the names we are interested in. The example "Maxwell's equations" is already under E89. What we have missed is an example of the dozens of the equation notations, such as : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Maxwell'sEqua…, which is an E73 (encoded meaning), in order to make the thing complete.

Posted by martin on 6/9/2017

On 9/6/2017 12:39 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The final two examples of E28 Conceptual Object are:
>
> * ‘Maxwell equations’ [preferred subject access point from LCSH,
>        http://lccn.loc.gov/sh85082387, as of 19 November 2012]
> * ‘Equations, Maxwell’ [variant subject access point, from the same source]
>
> Is this meant to imply that these are /different/ E28s? The example was clearly explicitly chosen, so I wonder what it was meant to demonstrate, as I would have expected these to be two different Appellations for the same Conceptual Object.
In addition to my previous remarks, yes, two different E28 naming another E28, realizing another E28;-)

Posted by Robert on 12/9/2017

Yup, the missing classes was the issue   Thanks Martin!

Rob