Dear Richard, and all, To try to clarify in the light of the morning, there are (as I see it) two separate issues:
1. A simplification of the scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment. This is a topic of the meeting next week. It would be good if you could comment if: a) the changes in scope notes introduces any new problems or solves old problems b) there are problems in E91 which was not solved by the proposed changes. 2. A document about (co)referencing. I would surely be happy to discuss that (at length!) but it is kept outside of CRM on purpose. It is a discussion document, not a part of the standard. Once finalised, it could be referred to from the standard if we so wish. As you can see it is still in draft form. Also remember the construct: E89 Propositional Object —> P67 refers to (is referred to by) —> E1 CRM Entity which can be used for reference without the co. The latter will easily introduce implicit co-reference. E91 is for explicit co-reference. I would be happy to go on about the difference (and can do it if it helps) but now my train is arriving and I have to do other things. I hope this helps to focus the disagreements, Øyvind 6. feb. 2015 kl. 20:55 skrev Øyvind Eide <lis...@oeide.no>: > > 6. feb. 2015 kl. 19:07 skrev Richard Light <rich...@light.demon.co.uk>: > >> >> On 06/02/2015 18:11, Øyvind Eide wrote: >>> If one source refers to one object, then it is not a co-reference. Then it >>> is a reference. >>> >>> Co-reference is there to say that you know (for some reason you may specify >>> if you want to) that two or more word/phrases refer to the same real-world >>> person. The latter can be specified or it can be left undefined. >>> >>> I fail to see why co-reference should solve the problem of single >>> propositional objects referring to real world objects — we already had >>> mecanisms for that. >> OK, here is an example. This section of Linked Data text from the >> recently-opened EEBO: >> >> http://data.modes.org.uk/TEI-P5/EEBO-TCP/id/A01483.d1e2619 >> >> is, in my opinion, talking about this non-information object: >> >> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick >> >> How would you model that in the CRM? > > I would say the two are propositional objects co-referring. No problem. > >> >>> >>> I have a feeling that the problems documented in the long paper would apply >>> to single references too if the target is not modelled within your >>> information system. This may be linked to fundamental problems with the >>> whole linked data paradigm. But this is just a feeling so I have to flesh >>> it out more to say something evidence based on it. >> This is an aspect of the issue which I don't understand. If you can't >> (knowingly) decide that you trust an external Linked Data resource and are >> allowed to make assertions which touch on the entities which it defines, >> what hope is there for the whole Linked Data project? (Or, if this >> constraint is specific to the CRM, then the same point applies more locally. >> :-) ) > > Sure you can trust something external to your infomration system. As, for > instance, a propositional object. > > I am afraid we may be talking past each other but it may be too late for me > to see how… > > Best, > > Øyvind > >> >> Richard >> >>> >>> I may have misunderstood you question so please use smaller spoons if I did! >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Øyvind >>> >>> 6. feb. 2015 kl. 18:08 skrev Richard Light <rich...@light.demon.co.uk>: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> If I have interpreted your longer paper correctly, that means that the >>>> whole co-reference mechanism that the CRM has erected fails to address the >>>> practical requirement which I would have. That is, the ability for me to >>>> indicate that a word or phrase in a source document refers (in my >>>> opinion), to a specified real-world person (or other non-information >>>> object). >>>> >>>> Have I got this right, and, if so, is there a CRM mechanism which does >>>> allow me to make this kind of assertion? >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two things: >>>>> >>>>> * New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep >>>>> semantic web complexity out of the CRM. Thanks to Gerald for input. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * A draft for a document describing the complexity left out of the scope >>>>> notes, based on Martin's previous scope notes and input from Arianna (but >>>>> no responsibility on any of them for the result!). This document could be >>>>> developed into a technical paper referred to from CRM, to an article, or >>>>> both. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Øyvind >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Richard Light >>> >> >> -- >> Richard Light > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
