Hi Richard , All, I am slightly confused about this discussion.
The purpose of the scope notes is to clarify the meaning of the entities and relationships that make up the CRM. The CRM models real world things both material and non-material. Inclusion of a named graph example in the scope notes does not affect the technical independence of the standard. It simple says that this is an example (in this case) of a propositional object. We need to have examples that are practically useful and mean something to people. In that context it personally bothers me not whether we have an example of a named graph or indeed other examples from other schema formats - as long as it helps people to understand what a propositional object is (and its scope). We could equally use examples from other data schema worlds and again it would say nothing about the technical implementation of the CRM. None of these examples would affect the standard in terms of its neutrality. It’s an illustrative scope note, but is not part of the standard in the context you describe. Examples need to be wide and varied and cater for all the different types of people that use the CRM and want to understand how it works. Cheers, Dominic From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Richard Light Sent: 28 July 2014 09:41 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs Martin, I thought that a major merit of the CRM was that it was an abstract model, which could be instantiated using whatever technology was felt to be appropriate. That being the case, I would be concerned if RDF-specific techniques were presented to the world as the only way in which a particular challenge ("implementing argumentation systems ...") could be tackled using the CRM. Or are you talking specifically about RDF implementations of the CRM? Why can't "premises and conclusions" be modelled using reification, so they can then be given a unique URI? This is the sort of approach which the BM has successfully deployed, as I understand it. I would be grateful if someone could provide a really simple concrete example which shows the need for the named graph approach. To pick up on the suggestion of using the AAT as an example: in what way is the AAT a named graph? Surely it's a SKOS Concept Scheme (plus)? I think it would be impossible to give an example of a "well-known" named graph, for the reasons Simon has been explaining. Richard On 25/07/2014 20:25, martin wrote: Dear Richard, At least in the implementations we use one triple can be in any number of graphs, even nested ones (SESAME, Virtuoso, OWLIM). The point Steve is making here that Named Graphs are the only way in which facts in a database can be described as explicit content of multiple(!) information objects which are described (creation etc.) in the same system. There is no other choice for implementing argumentation systems which explicitly describe premises and conclusions as propositions in the database. On 24/7/2014 11:03 πμ, Richard Light wrote: I must say that I'm not so sure that named graphs are going to be particularly useful for implementations of the CRM. As I understand it (and I don't claim to be an RDF expert), the idea of quads was invented so that "naked" RDF assertions could be given a "context". The problem I have always had with that idea is that you only get one shot at it (i.e. you can only assign one context to any given triple). Surely (a) we need to be able to express multiple contexts for statements made within the CRM, (b) we have already developed a rich enough use of RDF to allow us to do so. Richard On 24/07/2014 05:57, Simon Spero wrote: The AAT might work. I'm not entirely sure that named graphs are propositional objects as defined in the CRM, but I think the definition is loose enough. Named graphs are not graphs that are named; they are a tuple of an IRI (which is a name), and graph (which is the set of propositions). If the name is a proposition, it is not one in the graph it is associated with. If Propositional objects can include parts which are not propositions then there is no problem- though it would seem more natural to have information objects only part of which are propositional. That would be a bit too big a change this far down the road ; if named graphs can't fit directly, graphs themselves would; these could be part of named graphs. I am not sure if "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." is the right way to say it. May be better "information encoded as named graphs may represent instances of E73 Information object including an explicit representation of contents". Since it is an encoding construct, it may represent other things as well. In a sense, it is trivial that any RDF File is an information object, but it is not trivial if a part of the content of an RDF File represents (,not "is",) an information object in its own right. I would rather put that at the end of the scope note as an implementation note. On Jul 24, 2014 12:15 AM, "Stephen Stead" <ste...@paveprime.com<mailto:ste...@paveprime.com>> wrote: Can you think of a named graph that would be sufficiently iconic to make a good example? Rgds SdS Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075<tel:%2B44%2020%208668%203075> Mob +44 7802 755 013<tel:%2B44%207802%20755%20013> E-mail ste...@paveprime.com<mailto:ste...@paveprime.com> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads -----Original Message----- From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>] On Behalf Of Øyvind Eide Sent: 23 July 2014 15:12 To: crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs Dear Steve, This sounds good to me. Do you think an example of a named graph should be added as well? Best, Øyvind On 18. juli 2014, at 08:44, Stephen Stead wrote: > Dear CRM-SIG > 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: > > > Stephen Stead > Director > Paveprime Ltd > 35 Downs Court Rd > Purley, Surrey > UK, CR8 1BF > Tel +44 20 8668 3075 > Fax +44 20 8763 1739 > Mob +44 7802 755 013 > E-mail ste...@paveprime.com<mailto:ste...@paveprime.com> > LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto: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<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@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<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- Richard Light
