Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scholarly Reading.
A quick meta-point on the issue, and the term *factoid. * 1. The issue as a whole involves so many different complicated questions that any attempt to simplify inference without explicating them separately is likely to have problems. The issue might involve epistemic modal logics; doxastic logics (which usually are paraconsistent); justification logics; context logics; speech acts; quotation; DRT; and all sorts of other fun stuff. It might be possible to provide for the desired inferences using something like IKL (~ ISO Common Logic plus a proposition forming operator (that)). Like CL, it's first order with quantification over predicates. 2. The term *factoid* has a second sense in US English, referring to a something that is true, but trivial. This sense is almost completely dominant; a factoid in this sense is JTB. The earlier sense has been more or less obliterated in common usage. I translate the first sense to be "a belief justified solely by a single writing" , possibly with a connotation the creator of the writing either believed the factoid to be false, or believed that they did not know the factoid, though that could be definitional. This sense of factoid seems to be not JTB, even if it is accidentally true, and the form of the publication would normally be justification. [NB: not equating JTB and *knowledge] * Simon On Apr 4, 2017 9:19 AM, "Francesco Beretta" < francesco.bere...@ish-lyon.cnrs.fr> wrote: > Dear All, > > Here some interesting documentation about the Factoid model: > > http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/# > > Best > > Francesco > > Le 30.03.17 à 17:10, martin a écrit : > > Dear All, > > My colleague Athina found the following paper: > Michele Pasin, John Bradley; Factoid-based prosopography and computer > ontologies: towards an integrated approach. Lit Linguist Computing 2015; 30 > (1): 86-97. > > It seems that "factoid" describes the attitude towards a text I tried to > formulate as "Reading" ? > > Best, > > Martin > > On 23/3/2017 8:10 μμ, martin wrote: > > Dear All, > > I propose to start the discussion about a simplified Inference model for > the case in which the interpretation of a text as a proposition is not > questioned, but other things are questioned: > > A) assertions of historical truth: We need a text with a questioned fact, > such as Nero singing in Rome when it was burning. I think Tacitus states he > was singing in Rome, and another source says he was on the countryside. > > B) Shakespeare's "love is not love" : scholarly interpretation = > translation of sense > > C) Questioning provenance or authenticity of texts: In the Merchant of > Venice, place details are mentioned that only a person who was there could > have written that. Shakespeare was not allowed to travel abroad. > C1) Or, critical editions: In the first written version of Buddha's > speaches (Pali Canon), there are identifiable passages that present > past-Buddha dogmata. > > I would start with A), then B), then C) > > So, we first want to solve the case that the premise is a proposition, > which is not believed as such. > Rather, it is believed that the author of the text meant to express this > proposition. This implies that the premise does not make any sense without > a provenance assumption, which must be believed. > > In A), the provenance of the text from Tacitus is believed. His good will > to say the truth about Nero not. > In B) The provenance "Shakespeare" back to the respective edition/name or > pseudonym/place of creation is not questioned. > In C1) The text as being that compiled following the first performance is > not questioned, but who wrote the text under the name of Shakespeare is > questioned. > In C2) The provenance of the Pali Canon edition is not questioned, neither > that its content mainly goes historically back to Buddha, but the > provenance of a paragraph is questioned. > > Therefore, we could Introduce a subclass of I2 Belief i'd call "reading", > which puts the focus on believing authenticity of a comprehensible natural > language proposition relative to an explicitly stated provenance, but does > not mean believing the proposition, nor questioning the intended meaning of > the text: > > J1 used as premise (was premise for) : IXX Reading > > IXX Reading subclass of I2 Belief (or a generalized Belief) > > properties of IXX Reading: >JX1 understanding : Information Object (the cited phrase, understanding > the words) >JX2 believing provenance : I4 Proposition Set (This contains the link > from the cited phrase to the text the phrase is taken from, and all > provenance data believed. E.g. Shakespeare edition 1648(??) believed, > authorship by Shakespeare questioned, etc.) > *optional:* >JX3 reading as : I4 Proposition Set (the translation of the cited into > triples. If absent, the interpretation of the cited phrase is regarded to > be obvious) > > and J5 defaults to "true" (I believe all "J5 >
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scholarly Reading.
Dear All, Here some interesting documentation about the Factoid model: http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/# Best Francesco Le 30.03.17 à 17:10, martin a écrit : Dear All, My colleague Athina found the following paper: Michele Pasin, John Bradley; Factoid-based prosopography and computer ontologies: towards an integrated approach. Lit Linguist Computing 2015; 30 (1): 86-97. It seems that "factoid" describes the attitude towards a text I tried to formulate as "Reading" ? Best, Martin On 23/3/2017 8:10 μμ, martin wrote: Dear All, I propose to start the discussion about a simplified Inference model for the case in which the interpretation of a text as a proposition is not questioned, but other things are questioned: A) assertions of historical truth: We need a text with a questioned fact, such as Nero singing in Rome when it was burning. I think Tacitus states he was singing in Rome, and another source says he was on the countryside. B) Shakespeare's "love is not love" : scholarly interpretation = translation of sense C) Questioning provenance or authenticity of texts: In the Merchant of Venice, place details are mentioned that only a person who was there could have written that. Shakespeare was not allowed to travel abroad. C1) Or, critical editions: In the first written version of Buddha's speaches (Pali Canon), there are identifiable passages that present past-Buddha dogmata. I would start with A), then B), then C) So, we first want to solve the case that the premise is a proposition, which is not believed as such. Rather, it is believed that the author of the text meant to express this proposition. This implies that the premise does not make any sense without a provenance assumption, which must be believed. In A), the provenance of the text from Tacitus is believed. His good will to say the truth about Nero not. In B) The provenance "Shakespeare" back to the respective edition/name or pseudonym/place of creation is not questioned. In C1) The text as being that compiled following the first performance is not questioned, but who wrote the text under the name of Shakespeare is questioned. In C2) The provenance of the Pali Canon edition is not questioned, neither that its content mainly goes historically back to Buddha, but the provenance of a paragraph is questioned. Therefore, we could Introduce a subclass of I2 Belief i'd call "reading", which puts the focus on believing authenticity of a comprehensible natural language proposition relative to an explicitly stated provenance, but does not mean believing the proposition, nor questioning the intended meaning of the text: J1 used as premise (was premise for) : IXX Reading IXX Reading subclass of I2 Belief (or a generalized Belief) properties of IXX Reading: JX1 understanding : Information Object (the cited phrase, understanding the words) JX2 believing provenance : I4 Proposition Set (This contains the link from the cited phrase to the text the phrase is taken from, and all provenance data believed. E.g. Shakespeare edition 1648(??) believed, authorship by Shakespeare questioned, etc.) *optional:* JX3 reading as : I4 Proposition Set (the translation of the cited into triples. If absent, the interpretation of the cited phrase is regarded to be obvious) and J5 defaults to "true" (I believe all "J5 <#_J5_holds_to>holds to be: I6 <#_I6_Belief_Value>Belief Value" should default to "True" if absent). Then, a conclusion could be that the Information Object (cited phrase) is not believed. In that case, we would need to generalize I4 to be either a Named Graph or an unambiguous text. If we do not, we could use JX1, JX3 to introduce the translation of the cited text as formal proposition, and then use J5 to say "FALSE": "Nero singing in burning Rome 18 to 24 July, 64 AD" In the case of text sense interpretation, we would need a sort of "has translation" construct, if not simply a work about another work (FRBRoo). The representation of a text in a formal proposition (Nero P14 performed E7 Activity P2 has type "singing" ...falls within Destruction) In the case of the Buddhist text, we would need in addition the believe in the provenance of the post-Buddha dogma, plus the reading, resulting in a different provenance for the paragraph. If we agree on something like that, let us see if we can simplify or shortcut anything. best, Martin** -- -- 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
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: States and Situations
Hi Rob, ...and this is the problem that CRM addresses. This is the problem that everyone uses different vocabularies which has made it difficult for us to integrate data. In contrast, CRM creates a semantic framework of entities for integration. The incorporation of vocab through E55 is a solution, often far better than that actually used in collection management systems that prioritise vocabularies. In a CMS we simply pick a vocabulary term from an authority to populate a field. In other words we implicitly use P2 with authority terms and we add no framework semantics to the field value pairs. e.g. Field:Dimension, Value:height, or for the BM and others, a field label that is hard to decipher. In CRM, Dimension is explicitly typed and the vocabulary attached to it is typed as Type - we make use of skos through E55 Type (or skos:Concept) - which is a good place for vocabulary. If you incorporated vocabulary terms into the ontology itself then you would simply create the unmaintainable schema that CRM was created to solve. P2 is far better than having specialised vocabulary based properties. We sometimes specialise P2 in rare occasions with a property associated with a particular vocabulary term which is a one off - perhaps to differentiate types applied to the same domain. When we applied specialisation to internal vocabularies (in particular, association vocabulary) we realised that it led to a problem in which the vocabulary started to dominate the ontology schema (large numbers of specialisation of P2 has type) and make it unsupportable without any benefits over and above - P2_has_type >E55 (skos:Concept) > skos:prefLabel. The specialised properties we created from the vocabularies served no practical purpose when comparing vocabulary terms and probably made matters worse. I am happy to send some early examples of this. In comparison in many base systems I see, the additional vocabulary is not even normalised and resides in the same field - something like 20 x 10 (open) or (open lid) or some other vocabulary term. If you look at the Met's recent public data you will see that that have variations of dimension with descriptions in brackets. I think sometimes these are physical features, but appear like this, Dimension: 30H x 10W (base); 20 x 5 (clock face) - and so on. Dimension type, value, unit and additional type reflects CDWA (except with semantics), but in CDWA the only mandated field is "dimension description" (free text). Vocabulary alignment is a separate issue but actually made a little easier by employing a CRM framework first. Best, Dominic orcid.org/-0002-5539-3126 On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > Thanks Martin :) > > If I understand correctly, both the type of dimension (height vs width) > and the state of the object being measured (lid-open vs lid-closed) would > both end up as external P2_has_type URIs? > > _:h a Dimension ; > label “Height of the box with the lid open” ; > has_type , ; > has_value 14 ; > has_unit . > > And as the width doesn’t change depending on or > ness: > > _:w a Dimension ; > label “Height of the box with the lid open” ; > has_type , , ; > has_value 8 ; > has_unit . > > It seems a little jarring to have a core museum activity being treated > with (from my perspective) little regard, compared to some of the existing > distinctions made between classes with very little practical value. When > the and URIs are not understood, let alone the unit > URI, the only thing the ontology actually captures is the value… and as E60 > can be a string, there’s not all that much value (ha!) there either. > > When the answer to all questions is “Just put it in P2”, doesn’t that give > one pause that P2 is so broad as to be meaningless? > > Rob > > > On 4/3/17, 12:16 PM, "martin" wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > The standard way to describe this in the CRM is to type the Dimension > with the procedure: > a) Lid-open > b) Lid-closed > > The Measurement procedure type can be documented by a detailed text. > > In biology, one would measure "wingspan at life" and "winspan dead" of > a > bird, etc. > > Best, > > martin > > On 3/4/2017 7:13 μμ, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > One of our use cases which we are having trouble modeling with just > the core CRM ontology is measurements of an object in a particular state. > For example, we would like to record the measurements of a chest with the > lid open, rather than those with the lid closed. It is the same object, > just in two different states, resulting in different measurements. > > > > The proposed scope note does certainly clarify more than the rather > terse original, but if there is any feedback or guidance as to the above > situation, we would be greatly appreciative. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Rob > > > > -- > >
