> Introducing a class for context sounds strange to me as it would > indicate that the rest is context-free. Still, it could make sense in > order to have a possibility to make context explicit in the cases we > need to. > Surely the statements which we make with the CRM are themselves the 'context' for individual assertions? If so, we have our context already, and don't need to invent an artificial mechanism to express it.
Richard On 18/12/2017 10:05, Øyvind Eide wrote: > >> Am 15.12.2017 um 10:53 schrieb Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr >> <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>: >> >> On 3/26/2017 9:29 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote: >>> Dear Martin, >>> >>> this is dangerous territory. Do we need to go there? We may have to open up >>> all sorts of boxes including those owned by language philosophers and >>> semioticians. >>> >>> An utterance is made by someone, surely. But is a title an utterance? It is >>> not purely either or, but is it not more langue than parole? >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_and_parole >>> >>> I think one can find many different views on what information is in the >>> humanities and many of them would be quite different from Shannon. >>> Personally, I think thinking based on dialogism makes a lot of sense. >>> >>> Do we have to enter this territory? Do we need to express opinions on these >>> things in CRM? >> Dear Øyvind, >> >> Clearly, one principle of the CRM is, never interpret a term! So, we >> are not concerned settling disputes about what information or an >> utterance is. We are concerned with the consistency and effectiveness >> of definitions for our information purposes. So, for me the problem >> is a simple question of disambiguation of identity. >> >> Since you wrote (and I agree) "E35 Title can only be used when such a >> string is actually are used as a title...." this implies that (a) the >> same string may be used twice as a title and (b) translates >> differently in these cases. >> >> This means, that the identity of the title as described above >> consists of the string + context. Otherwise, the scope note is >> inconsistent. >> This context can either be determined as (1) language, (2) one work >> of art, (3) multiple works of art intentionally referring to the same >> source - F1 Work or >> "loans" from other F1 Work. >> >> This creates a precedent with respect to identity of information. >> Equally obviously, if we create in the CRM an identifier for "mehr >> Licht" by Goethe, true or not, and want to trace arguments about the >> interpretation and reality in an information system, we must, if we >> want or not, carry the context with us. So, we have two choices: >> Either we keep the identity of an E73 provenance independent, and >> introduce another class for information object use context, or we >> imply a concept of provenance as part of the identity of the >> information object. >> >> Equally obviously, it is impossible in general to trace exact >> provenance. We could, however, in the scope note, describe the >> context concept behind an information object in a more general way, >> which implies specialization from case to case. >> >> A relevant application are tombstone and other short inscriptions. >> Epigraphy experts regard the same text on another stone as different. >> >> We may even talk about two message levels. For instance "r.i.p." as a >> generic message in the tombstone context, and "r.i.p." as a personal >> message on a >> particular tombstone. >> >> Or we say r.i.p. to the issue;-) > > Indeed, Martin. I see your arguments, and hopefully understand them in > the right context. > > As Hirst pointed out, context is a spurious concept. We need some, we > never need (or can have) all, and the border between the two is unsharp. > > Is this not also the trade-off of information integration in general, > and where we disagree with the semantic web community (a sentence that > should have had a lot of qualification)? Because we know that the > dream of a decontextualised emerging network of useful information is > just a dream, at least for cultural history and the humanities. Still, > we also know that if we let ourselves tie down to traditional levels > of context we are lost and will never be able to integrate something. > > Introducing a class for context sounds strange to me as it would > indicate that the rest is context-free. Still, it could make sense in > order to have a possibility to make context explicit in the cases we > need to. > > Regards, > > Øyvind > >> >> Cheers, >> >> martin >>> Regards, >>> >>> Øyvind >>> >>>> 24. mar. 2017 kl. 12.50 skrev martin <mar...@ics.forth.gr>: >>>> >>>> Dear Oeyvind, >>>> >>>> I agree with the scope note, given the interpretation we decided. I wonder >>>> however if there is a >>>> deeper issue here: >>>> >>>> In Germany there exists the saying that dying Goethe uttered "mehr Licht" >>>> ("more light"). I reused this proposition yesterday, because I wanted to >>>> read a newspaper. >>>> >>>> Claude Shannon defined information as a message with a known provenance, >>>> which is the most accepted theory in computer science. >>>> >>>> That would mean that the identity of an Information Object is a tuple >>>> <content,sender>, rather than <content>. >>>> >>>> If we accept that, we enter another hell of arguments about what the >>>> identity of the sender is. That is easy for a Title, but quite tricky for >>>> the non-smoking symbol. >>>> >>>> Question: Should we touch also this front, or are we sure that "more >>>> light" is always "more light" ? >>>> >>>> In other words, may be a title actually deviates from an appellation in >>>> that it adds to its identity the provenance, which in turn allows for >>>> translation? >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> martin >>>> >>>> On 24/3/2017 11:45 πμ, Øyvind Eide wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Here is my homework for Issue 260: >>>>> >>>>> 1. E35: Accepted the comment made by Oyvind that the scope note of E35 >>>>> Title is misleading, since it refers to something functioning a title, >>>>> not having the form of a title, it is decided to keep the Title, to >>>>> update scope note. This HW is assigned to Oyvind >>>>> >>>>> I have changed the first paragraph of the scope note >>>>> >>>>> Old scope note for E35: >>>>> >>>>>> This class comprises the names assigned to works, such as texts, >>>>>> artworks or pieces of music. >>>>>> Titles are proper noun phrases or verbal phrases, and should not be >>>>>> confused with generic object names such as “chair”, “painting” or “book” >>>>>> (the latter are common nouns that stand for instances of E55 Type). >>>>>> Titles may be assigned by the creator of the work itself, or by a social >>>>>> group. >>>>>> This class also comprises the translations of titles that are used as >>>>>> surrogates for the original titles in different social contexts. >>>>> Proposed new version: >>>>> >>>>> “This class comprises textual strings that within a cultural context can >>>>> be clearly identified as titles due to their form. Being a subclass of >>>>> E41 Appellation, E35 Title can only be used when such a string is >>>>> actually are used as a title of a work, such as a text, an artwork, or a >>>>> piece of music. >>>>> >>>>> Titles are proper noun phrases or verbal phrases, and should not be >>>>> confused with generic object names such as “chair”, “painting” or “book” >>>>> (the latter are common nouns that stand for instances of E55 Type). >>>>> Titles may be assigned by the creator of the work itself, or by a social >>>>> group. >>>>> This class also comprises the translations of titles that are used as >>>>> surrogates for the original titles in different social contexts.” >>>>> >>>>> ————————— >>>>> >>>>> 2. E49 Time Appellation: to keep but it should be merged with Date and it >>>>> should be decided if they keep the same name (Oyvind) >>>>> >>>>> E50 Date should be marked obsolete. I have changed the inheritance, the >>>>> first paragraph of the scope note, and added two examples. >>>>> >>>>> Old definition of E49 Time Appellation: >>>>> >>>>>> Subclass of : E41 Appellation >>>>>> Superclass of: E50 Date >>>>>> >>>>>> Scope Note: >>>>>> >>>>>> This class comprises all forms of names or codes, such as historical >>>>>> periods which are characteristically used to refer to a specific E52 >>>>>> Time-Span. This includes human- and machine readable dates and >>>>>> timestamps. >>>>>> The instances of E49 Time Appellation may vary in their degree of >>>>>> precision, and they may be relative to other time frames, “Before >>>>>> Christ” for example. Instances of E52 Time-Span are often defined by >>>>>> reference to a cultural period or an event e.g. ‘the duration of the >>>>>> Ming Dynasty’. >>>>>> Examples: >>>>>> • “Meiji” [Japanese term for a specific time-span] >>>>>> • “1st half of the XX century” >>>>>> • “Quaternary” >>>>>> • “1215 Hegira” [a date in the Islamic calendar] >>>>>> • “Last century” >>>>> New definition of E49 Time Appellation: >>>>> >>>>> Subclass of : E41 Appellation >>>>> >>>>> Scope Note: >>>>> >>>>> This class comprises all forms of names or codes, such as historical >>>>> periods, and dates, which are characteristically used to refer to a >>>>> specific E52 Time-Span. >>>>> The instances of E49 Time Appellation may vary in their degree of >>>>> precision, and they may be relative to other time frames, “Before Christ” >>>>> for example. Instances of E52 Time-Span are often defined by reference to >>>>> a cultural period or an event e.g. ‘the duration of the Ming Dynasty’. >>>>> Examples: >>>>> • “Meiji” [Japanese term for a specific time-span] >>>>> • “1st half of the XX century” >>>>> • “Quaternary” >>>>> • “1215 Hegira” [a date in the Islamic calendar] >>>>> • “Last century” >>>>> • “2013-10-05” >>>>> • “Mon May 19 22:39:23 CET 2014” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Øyvind >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>>> 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 | >>>> | >>>> 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 >>>> >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | >> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | >> | Email: 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 > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- *Richard Light*
