Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[martin]

Dear Christian-Emil,

On 31/7/2014 10:03 πμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> This is an interesting discussion, but somewhat distant from the question 
> "Should the scope note for E73 Information Object be extend with an example 
> showing that a named graph in rdf represents an instance of E73 Information 
> Object?". In my view this is unproblematic.
>
> Propositional objects and hence information objects are described in the CRM 
> as: " This class comprises immaterial items, including but not limited to 
> stories, plots, procedural prescriptions, algorithms, laws of physics or 
> images that are, or represent in some sense, sets of propositions about real 
> or imaginary things and that are documented as single units or serve as topic 
> of discourse".  
>
> Every instance of the class(es) represents a proposition/statement 
> constructed by a human. (Thus it is not a Platonic object existing before and 
>  independently of humans for those interested in the formalist<->Platonist 
> debate) . Even in mathematics important proofs are not necessarily carried 
> out in all formalistic details. The four colour problem was partly solved by 
> computerized proofs, but nobody cared to proof the correctness of the 
> programs.
Yes, context cannot be ignored. We have to perceive all information as
ways to communicate about trust in knowledge between humans.
>
> RDF(S): In principle (and in some implementations) rdf triple stores are 
> basically equal to a relational database with one table with three (four for 
> named graphs?)  columns. 
"Quad Stores", yes.
> With the old Z39.50 protocol added one would have a variant of linked data or 
> semantic web. So there is nothing new here but a much more handy language to 
> express pieces information and how they interlink. From a logician point of 
> view RDF(S) is an implementation /interpretation technique on the model 
> level. 
>
> So what is meant by 'classic" in the "RDF(S) is based on classic logic"?.
As I understand, relational databases do not know links (joins are
arbitrary), subsumption and inheritance.This and the Relational logic
are described in FOL?
>
> C-E
>  
>
>
>>  Also, to clarify: RDF and RDFS are based in classical logic, as is OWL,
>> which is the description logic SROIQ(D).
>>
>>  RDF triples are ground terms that, if accepted, are axioms; if there are
>> logical inconsistencies this inconsistency will cause clashes (most OWL
>> reasoners are tableau based).
>>
>> Yes! The implicit logic in RDF/RDFS is however minimal and categorical:
>> subsumption and inheritance of properties. Applied to the concepts in the
>> CRM only, we would not question these on a regular base. To overcome
>> practically the intrinsic fuzziness of the concepts in the CRM, we normally
>> adopt a "recall over precision" attitude in the definition, classification 
>> and
>> querying (everything that "could be an E7 Activity" should be classified as 
>> an
>> E7 Activity).
>>
>> All other theories expressed in RDF do not need to be logically consistent 
>> in a
>> CRM implementation (multiple fathers etc. ;-) ).
>>

-- 

--
 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   |
--

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

This is an interesting discussion, but somewhat distant from the question 
"Should the scope note for E73 Information Object be extend with an example 
showing that a named graph in rdf represents an instance of E73 Information 
Object?". In my view this is unproblematic.

Propositional objects and hence information objects are described in the CRM 
as: " This class comprises immaterial items, including but not limited to 
stories, plots, procedural prescriptions, algorithms, laws of physics or images 
that are, or represent in some sense, sets of propositions about real or 
imaginary things and that are documented as single units or serve as topic of 
discourse".  

Every instance of the class(es) represents a proposition/statement constructed 
by a human. (Thus it is not a Platonic object existing before and  
independently of humans for those interested in the formalist<->Platonist 
debate) . Even in mathematics important proofs are not necessarily carried out 
in all formalistic details. The four colour problem was partly solved by 
computerized proofs, but nobody cared to proof the correctness of the programs.

RDF(S): In principle (and in some implementations) rdf triple stores are 
basically equal to a relational database with one table with three (four for 
named graphs?)  columns. With the old Z39.50 protocol added one would have a 
variant of linked data or semantic web. So there is nothing new here but a much 
more handy language to express pieces information and how they interlink. From 
a logician point of view RDF(S) is an implementation /interpretation technique 
on the model level. 

So what is meant by 'classic" in the "RDF(S) is based on classic logic"?.

C-E



>-Original Message-
>From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin
>Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:18 PM
>To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73
>Information Object to specifically include named graphs
>
>Dear Simon,
>
>On 29/7/2014 7:34 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:
>
>
>   If the propositions in a named graph are treated the same way that
>propositions in other propositional objects then  the CRM need make no
>commitment as to their truth.
>   Completely false "documents" that claimed to describe reality are still
>at the least information objects.
>
>
>This is indeed how I perceive the CRM and the next step in integrated
>knowledge management!
>
>Belief values, of any kind, are orthogonal to propositions. Since real world
>science and scholarship is much more subtle in belief value than formal logic,
>and the actual nature of  conviction formation by humans is still an open
>research question, but empirically successful (otherwise we had no
>aeroplanes), a reasonable scientific and scholarly information service must
>separate propositions from implicit truth values in the long term.
>
>I see the near future as monitoring all information back to the evidence of
>knowledge it is grounded in, as a phenomenological approach, which models
>and implements what any good researcher so far should do anyhow, but
>cannot in current information aggregation system.
>
>
>   Also, to clarify: RDF and RDFS are based in classical logic, as is OWL,
>which is the description logic SROIQ(D).
>
>   RDF triples are ground terms that, if accepted, are axioms; if there are
>logical inconsistencies this inconsistency will cause clashes (most OWL
>reasoners are tableau based).
>
>Yes! The implicit logic in RDF/RDFS is however minimal and categorical:
>subsumption and inheritance of properties. Applied to the concepts in the
>CRM only, we would not question these on a regular base. To overcome
>practically the intrinsic fuzziness of the concepts in the CRM, we normally
>adopt a "recall over precision" attitude in the definition, classification and
>querying (everything that "could be an E7 Activity" should be classified as an
>E7 Activity).
>
>All other theories expressed in RDF do not need to be logically consistent in a
>CRM implementation (multiple fathers etc. ;-) ).
>The use of OWL rules in a database is practically prohibitive: It inhibits data
>entry without adequate diagnostics to the user about the reasons of failure. It
>prevents storing alternative opinions, one of the fundamenatl requirements
>for CRM-based aggregation services.
>
>Best,
>
>Martin
>
>
>   On Jul 29, 2014 12:06 AM, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore"
> wrote:
>
>
>   Dear all,
>   It  should be unproblematic to add an RDF example to the
>scope note of E73.  This is just one example among others.
>   RDF is perhaps not the ideal solution to implement systems
>with deduction.
>
>   Between a set of premises and a conclusion there must of
>course be a series of applications of deduction rules. The premises are a set 
>of
>facts (that is assumed to be true). In a RDF triple store (heap)  containing 
>more
>facts than relevant (or perhaps 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[martin]

Dear Simon,

On 29/7/2014 7:34 ??, Simon Spero wrote:


If the propositions in a named graph are treated the same way that 
propositions in other propositional objects then the CRM need make no 
commitment as to their truth.
Completely false "documents" that claimed to describe reality are 
still at the least information objects.


This is indeed how I perceive the CRM and the next step in integrated 
knowledge management!


Belief values, of any kind, are orthogonal to propositions. Since real 
world science and scholarship is much
more subtle in belief value than formal logic, and the actual nature of  
conviction formation by humans is still an open research question, but 
empirically successful (otherwise we had no aeroplanes), a reasonable
scientific and scholarly information service must separate propositions 
from implicit truth values in the long term.


I see the near future as monitoring all information back to the evidence 
of knowledge it is grounded in, as a phenomenological approach, which 
models and implements what any good researcher so far should do anyhow,

but cannot in current information aggregation system.


Also, to clarify: RDF and RDFS are based in classical logic, as is 
OWL, which is the description logic SROIQ(D).


RDF triples are ground terms that, if accepted, are axioms; if there 
are logical inconsistencies this inconsistency will cause clashes 
(most OWL reasoners are tableau based).


Yes! The implicit logic in RDF/RDFS is however minimal and categorical: 
subsumption and inheritance of properties. Applied to the concepts in 
the CRM only, we would not question these on a regular base. To overcome 
practically the intrinsic fuzziness of the concepts in the CRM, we 
normally adopt a "recall over precision" attitude in the definition, 
classification and querying (everything that "could be an E7 Activity" 
should be classified as an E7 Activity).


All other theories expressed in RDF do not need to be logically 
consistent in a CRM implementation (multiple fathers etc. ;-) ).
The use of OWL rules in a database is practically prohibitive: It 
inhibits data entry without adequate diagnostics
to the user about the reasons of failure. It prevents storing 
alternative opinions, one of the fundamenatl

requirements for CRM-based aggregation services.

Best,

Martin
On Jul 29, 2014 12:06 AM, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" 
mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.no>> wrote:


Dear all,
It  should be unproblematic to add an RDF example to the scope
note of E73.  This is just one example among others.
RDF is perhaps not the ideal solution to implement systems with
deduction.

Between a set of premises and a conclusion there must of course be
a series of applications of deduction rules. The premises are a
set of facts (that is assumed to be true). In a RDF triple store
(heap)  containing more facts than relevant (or perhaps
inconsistent with) the facts used in the deduction, the set of
facts used as the premises must be identified. I assume it is here
the named graphs are needed.

To check results  in  hypothetic-deductive science (which I
believe this is all about) , one needs a) to check the way
(deduction) from the premises to the conclusion to see if it is
valid under the assumption that the premises are and b) check if
the premises (the set of facts) are true/valid.

Last time I worked with this was in the previous high days of AI
in the end of the 1980ies. At that time the focus was not so much
on facts but on deduction (type theory, lambda calculus, lisp,
prolog). The current RDF focus on facts obscure the logical focus.

C-E

>-Original Message-
>From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr
] On Behalf Of martin
>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:35 PM
>To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr ; Dimitris
Plexousakis
>Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73
>Information Object to specifically include named graphs
>
>Dear Richard,
>
>On 28/7/2014 11:41 ??, Richard Light wrote:
>
>
>   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?
>
>
>I share your concerns :-) !
>
>
>
>   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 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Simon Spero]

If the propositions in a named graph are treated the same way that
propositions in other propositional objects then  the CRM need make no
commitment as to their truth.
Completely false "documents" that claimed to describe reality are still at
the least information objects.

Also, to clarify: RDF and RDFS are based in classical logic, as is OWL,
which is the description logic SROIQ(D).

RDF triples are ground terms that, if accepted, are axioms; if there are
logical inconsistencies this inconsistency will cause clashes (most OWL
reasoners are tableau based).
On Jul 29, 2014 12:06 AM, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" 
wrote:

> Dear all,
> It  should be unproblematic to add an RDF example to the scope note of
> E73.  This is just one example among others.
> RDF is perhaps not the ideal solution to implement systems with deduction.
>
> Between a set of premises and a conclusion there must of course be a
> series of applications of deduction rules. The premises are a set of facts
> (that is assumed to be true). In a RDF triple store (heap)  containing more
> facts than relevant (or perhaps inconsistent with) the facts used in the
> deduction, the set of facts used as the premises must be identified. I
> assume it is here the named graphs are needed.
>
> To check results  in  hypothetic-deductive science (which I believe this
> is all about) , one needs a) to check the way (deduction) from the premises
> to the conclusion to see if it is valid under the assumption that the
> premises are and b) check if the premises (the set of facts) are true/valid.
>
> Last time I worked with this was in the previous high days of AI in the
> end of the 1980ies. At that time the focus was not so much on facts but on
> deduction (type theory, lambda calculus, lisp, prolog). The current RDF
> focus on facts obscure the logical focus.
>
> C-E
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin
> >Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:35 PM
> >To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; Dimitris Plexousakis
> >Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73
> >Information Object to specifically include named graphs
> >
> >Dear Richard,
> >
> >On 28/7/2014 11:41 πμ, Richard Light wrote:
> >
> >
> >   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?
> >
> >
> >I share your concerns :-) !
> >
> >
> >
> >   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.
> >
> >
> >Your are right!
> >
> >Actually I see the "Named Graph" not as a particular RDF feature, but at
> the
> >level of abstraction that Simon pointed
> >out: A set of propositions with a "historical" identity which is not
> reduced to
> >the identity of the set itself.
> >
> >The CRM uses an abstract data model of classes, superclasses, properties,
> >superproperties etc., which is more or less the stable core of all data
> >structures and KR models used so far in industrial systems. We have
> however
> >adopted the term "property" from RDF, just to reduce the semantic gap for
> >people now. Originally, we used TELOS terms, but KIF, OIL was equally
> >compatible.
> >
> >The requirement to introduce argumentation structures into consistent
> >graphs of propositions is relatively new.
> >Reification is an atomic mechanism, which does not allow for describing
> that a
> >set of propositions is believed together. Therefore it looses an
> important part
> >of the semantics of argumentation. A Named Graph is in my mind an
> >abstarction which subsumes reification. Reification is a workaround using
> a
> >syntax which has not foreseen the problem before. Named Graph is a NEW
> >logical construct not found in any other industrial KR model, and born
> out of a
> >necessity that first showed up when integrating different sources.
> (Before,
> >one could say AI just slept in a one-truth cyberworld with a god-like
> user or
> >math on top of reality).
> >
> >I believe we need the Named Graph construct as a logical form, not as an
> RDF
> >syntax, if we want to integrate provenance of knowledge with the CRM. So
> >far, we have evidence of two real-life data structures, one is
> archaeological
> >excavation records, and another description of medieval book-bindings,
> which
> >systematically register source of 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Richard Light]

On 29/07/2014 13:44, martin wrote:


So, in what way would you create a Named Graph (in your sense) for 
the AAT?  What URI would you associate with each triple in the 
concept scheme? 

http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/
And what practical benefit does this give you, that simply using the 
URL quoted above doesn't give you?
You can upload the AAT into a triple store and still know this is the 
same AAT...


An example of a "well known" graph will always have that problem - it 
is defined somewhere else.
In the CRM, we do not require examples to be well known. We can create 
a small TRIG file.


The whole point of a Named Graph is distinguishing a bunch of 
propositions within a database (triple store,
graph database...). If the propositions are still on the Getty server, 
I cannot run a transitive closure etc. on its

content.

OK, thanks for your patience: I see now.

Richard
--
*Richard Light*

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[martin]

Hi Richard,

On 29/7/2014 12:06 ??, Richard Light wrote:

Martin,

Thank you for this: I now have a much better idea of what you are 
trying to express.  I can also now see how the AAT is relevant to the 
discussion: it is precisely a set of propositions with an identity, or 
(to use SKOS terminology) a Concept Scheme. (However, I can't see the 
AAT being cited as justification for an assertion or set of 
assertions, so maybe it's not that pertinent an example.)


However, the AAT as a concept scheme is identified by the URI:

http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/

which yields a web page when invoked normally, and redirects to:

http://vocab.getty.edu/download/rdf?uri=http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/

when RDF is requested in the HTTP Accept header.  Every concept within 
AAT contains an assertion that it is skos:inScheme AAT.


So, in what way would you create a Named Graph (in your sense) for the 
AAT?  What URI would you associate with each triple in the concept 
scheme? 

http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/
And what practical benefit does this give you, that simply using the 
URL quoted above doesn't give you?
You can upload the AAT into a triple store and still know this is the 
same AAT...


An example of a "well known" graph will always have that problem - it is 
defined somewhere else.
In the CRM, we do not require examples to be well known. We can create a 
small TRIG file.


The whole point of a Named Graph is distinguishing a bunch of 
propositions within a database (triple store,
graph database...). If the propositions are still on the Getty server, I 
cannot run a transitive closure etc. on its

content.

You can regard the whole LoD space as a big triple store, but you cannot 
run a query against it up to now.
This part of LoD is still a bit in the science fiction area - at least 
from the point of view of industrial application.
Distributed querying still poses theoretical questions and serious 
performance issues. I'd guess some
20 years to become reality, if ever. The "if ever" comes from my 
concerns how you can manage such a space

without controlled provenance of knowledge with all its ramifications.

Best,

Martin


Richard

On 28/07/2014 11:34, martin wrote:

Dear Richard,

On 28/7/2014 11:41 ??, Richard Light wrote:

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?

I share your concerns :-) !


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.

Your are right!

Actually I see the "Named Graph" not as a particular RDF feature, but 
at the level of abstraction that Simon pointed
out: A set of propositions with a "historical" identity which is not 
reduced to the identity of the set itself.


The CRM uses an abstract data model of classes, superclasses, 
properties, superproperties etc., which is more or
less the stable core of all data structures and KR models used so far 
in industrial systems. We have however adopted
the term "property" from RDF, just to reduce the semantic gap for 
people now. Originally, we used TELOS terms, but KIF, OIL was equally 
compatible.


The requirement to introduce argumentation structures into consistent 
graphs of propositions is relatively new.
Reification is an atomic mechanism, which does not allow for 
describing that a set of propositions is believed
together. Therefore it looses an important part of the semantics of 
argumentation. A Named Graph is in my mind
an abstarction which subsumes reification. Reification is a 
workaround using a syntax which has not foreseen the problem before. 
Named Graph is a NEW logical construct not found in any other 
industrial KR model, and born out of a necessity that first showed up 
when integrating different sources. (Before, one could say AI just 
slept in a one-truth cyberworld with a god-like user or math on top 
of reality).


I believe we need the Named Graph construct as a logical form, not as 
an RDF syntax, if we want to integrate
provenance of knowledge with the CRM. So far, we have evidence of two 
real-life data structures, one is
archaeological excavation records, and another description of 
medieval book-bindings, which systematically
register source of evidence and concluded facts. E.g., geometric 
topology of stratigarphic units and microsopic
stratigraphic interface properties are used to justify chronological 
sequence. In a 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[martin]

Dear Christian-Emil,

On 29/7/2014 10:00 πμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> Dear all,
> It  should be unproblematic to add an RDF example to the scope note of E73.  
> This is just one example among others. 
> RDF is perhaps not the ideal solution to implement systems with deduction. 
Your comments well taken :-) - but I did not want to talk about AI and
binary logic at all, nor about
code running conclusions on its own. Belief values can be anything up to
gut feelings. What I wanted to talk about is monitoring
human-made inferences - S/W generated inferences only being a special
kind of which are modified by belief values
in the code itself. I agree with you that such as system must be able to
distinguish between different parts of the graph.
The total of propositions in a triple store using CRM is expected to be
globally inconsistent, and anyhow the belief values
are not adequately represented. Bayesian networks are among the kinds of
reasoning users would apply - they do not fit
with AI languages anyhow.

Therefore RDF should be sufficient to represent the chaining of arguments ?

(see also Doerr, M., Kritsotaki, A., & Boutsika, A. (2011). Factual
argumentation - a core model for assertions making
. /Journal on Computing and
Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) /, /3/(3), 34, New York, NY, USA : ACM)

In general, you can correctly conclude from a correct premise a wrong
conclusion, if your argument is probabilistic. You can conclude
from a wrong premise a correct conclusion - by chance, and you can make
a wrong inference from a correct premise resulting in
a correct conclusion , as many proofs in mathematics. I believe a
minimal formal system for cultural discourse would be a combination of
modal logic with unknown values.

I agree that "the current RDF focus on facts obscures the logical focus"

Best,

martin
>
> Between a set of premises and a conclusion there must of course be a series 
> of applications of deduction rules. The premises are a set of facts (that is 
> assumed to be true). In a RDF triple store (heap)  containing more facts than 
> relevant (or perhaps inconsistent with) the facts used in the deduction, the 
> set of facts used as the premises must be identified. I assume it is here the 
> named graphs are needed. 
>
> To check results  in  hypothetic-deductive science (which I believe this is 
> all about) , one needs a) to check the way (deduction) from the premises to 
> the conclusion to see if it is valid under the assumption that the premises 
> are and b) check if the premises (the set of facts) are true/valid.
>
> Last time I worked with this was in the previous high days of AI in the end 
> of the 1980ies. At that time the focus was not so much on facts but on 
> deduction (type theory, lambda calculus, lisp, prolog). The current RDF focus 
> on facts obscure the logical focus.
>
> C-E
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin
>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:35 PM
>> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; Dimitris Plexousakis
>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73
>> Information Object to specifically include named graphs
>>
>> Dear Richard,
>>
>> On 28/7/2014 11:41 πμ, Richard Light wrote:
>>
>>
>>  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?
>>
>>
>> I share your concerns :-) !
>>
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>
>> Your are right!
>>
>> Actually I see the "Named Graph" not as a particular RDF feature, but at the
>> level of abstraction that Simon pointed
>> out: A set of propositions with a "historical" identity which is not reduced 
>> to
>> the identity of the set itself.
>>
>> The CRM uses an abstract data model of classes, superclasses, properties,
>> superproperties etc., which is more or less the stable core of all data
>> structures and KR models used so far in industrial systems. We have however
>> adopted the term "property" from RDF, just to reduce the semantic gap for
>> people now. Originally, we used TELOS terms, but KIF, OIL was equally
>> compatible.
>>
>> The requirement to introduce argumentation structures into consistent
>> graphs of propositions is relatively new.
>> 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

Dear all,
It  should be unproblematic to add an RDF example to the scope note of E73.  
This is just one example among others. 
RDF is perhaps not the ideal solution to implement systems with deduction. 

Between a set of premises and a conclusion there must of course be a series of 
applications of deduction rules. The premises are a set of facts (that is 
assumed to be true). In a RDF triple store (heap)  containing more facts than 
relevant (or perhaps inconsistent with) the facts used in the deduction, the 
set of facts used as the premises must be identified. I assume it is here the 
named graphs are needed. 

To check results  in  hypothetic-deductive science (which I believe this is all 
about) , one needs a) to check the way (deduction) from the premises to the 
conclusion to see if it is valid under the assumption that the premises are and 
b) check if the premises (the set of facts) are true/valid.

Last time I worked with this was in the previous high days of AI in the end of 
the 1980ies. At that time the focus was not so much on facts but on deduction 
(type theory, lambda calculus, lisp, prolog). The current RDF focus on facts 
obscure the logical focus.

C-E

>-Original Message-
>From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin
>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:35 PM
>To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; Dimitris Plexousakis
>Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73
>Information Object to specifically include named graphs
>
>Dear Richard,
>
>On 28/7/2014 11:41 πμ, Richard Light wrote:
>
>
>   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?
>
>
>I share your concerns :-) !
>
>
>
>   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.
>
>
>Your are right!
>
>Actually I see the "Named Graph" not as a particular RDF feature, but at the
>level of abstraction that Simon pointed
>out: A set of propositions with a "historical" identity which is not reduced to
>the identity of the set itself.
>
>The CRM uses an abstract data model of classes, superclasses, properties,
>superproperties etc., which is more or less the stable core of all data
>structures and KR models used so far in industrial systems. We have however
>adopted the term "property" from RDF, just to reduce the semantic gap for
>people now. Originally, we used TELOS terms, but KIF, OIL was equally
>compatible.
>
>The requirement to introduce argumentation structures into consistent
>graphs of propositions is relatively new.
>Reification is an atomic mechanism, which does not allow for describing that a
>set of propositions is believed together. Therefore it looses an important part
>of the semantics of argumentation. A Named Graph is in my mind an
>abstarction which subsumes reification. Reification is a workaround using a
>syntax which has not foreseen the problem before. Named Graph is a NEW
>logical construct not found in any other industrial KR model, and born out of a
>necessity that first showed up when integrating different sources. (Before,
>one could say AI just slept in a one-truth cyberworld with a god-like user or
>math on top of reality).
>
>I believe we need the Named Graph construct as a logical form, not as an RDF
>syntax, if we want to integrate provenance of knowledge with the CRM. So
>far, we have evidence of two real-life data structures, one is archaeological
>excavation records, and another description of medieval book-bindings, which
>systematically register source of evidence and concluded facts. E.g., geometric
>topology of stratigarphic units and microsopic stratigraphic interface
>properties are used to justify chronological sequence. In a simple model, this
>is atomic, in a more general, it is probabilistic Bayesian. So, we would need a
>"Typed Named Graph", which restricts the propositions in the Graph to a
>certain schema (topology, chronology), and then a relationship "is evidence
>for"
>between the typed named graphs. The assertion itself forms part of the belief
>implicit in the archaeological record.
>
>If there is any logician on this mailing list, a proper formulation of such a
>construct and an abstract syntax for the CRM would be great to have!!!
>
>We will try to suggest a graphic primitive, which is a bubble around the
>propositions with a "hot spot" on the 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Richard Light]

Martin,

Thank you for this: I now have a much better idea of what you are trying 
to express.  I can also now see how the AAT is relevant to the 
discussion: it is precisely a set of propositions with an identity, or 
(to use SKOS terminology) a Concept Scheme.   (However, I can't see the 
AAT being cited as justification for an assertion or set of assertions, 
so maybe it's not that pertinent an example.)


However, the AAT as a concept scheme is identified by the URI:

http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/

which yields a web page when invoked normally, and redirects to:

http://vocab.getty.edu/download/rdf?uri=http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/

when RDF is requested in the HTTP Accept header.  Every concept within 
AAT contains an assertion that it is skos:inScheme AAT.


So, in what way would you create a Named Graph (in your sense) for the 
AAT?  What URI would you associate with each triple in the concept 
scheme?  And what practical benefit does this give you, that simply 
using the URL quoted above doesn't give you?


Richard

On 28/07/2014 11:34, martin wrote:

Dear Richard,

On 28/7/2014 11:41 ??, Richard Light wrote:

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?

I share your concerns :-) !


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.

Your are right!

Actually I see the "Named Graph" not as a particular RDF feature, but 
at the level of abstraction that Simon pointed
out: A set of propositions with a "historical" identity which is not 
reduced to the identity of the set itself.


The CRM uses an abstract data model of classes, superclasses, 
properties, superproperties etc., which is more or
less the stable core of all data structures and KR models used so far 
in industrial systems. We have however adopted
the term "property" from RDF, just to reduce the semantic gap for 
people now. Originally, we used TELOS terms, but KIF, OIL was equally 
compatible.


The requirement to introduce argumentation structures into consistent 
graphs of propositions is relatively new.
Reification is an atomic mechanism, which does not allow for 
describing that a set of propositions is believed
together. Therefore it looses an important part of the semantics of 
argumentation. A Named Graph is in my mind
an abstarction which subsumes reification. Reification is a workaround 
using a syntax which has not foreseen the problem before. Named Graph 
is a NEW logical construct not found in any other industrial KR model, 
and born out of a necessity that first showed up when integrating 
different sources. (Before, one could say AI just slept in a one-truth 
cyberworld with a god-like user or math on top of reality).


I believe we need the Named Graph construct as a logical form, not as 
an RDF syntax, if we want to integrate
provenance of knowledge with the CRM. So far, we have evidence of two 
real-life data structures, one is
archaeological excavation records, and another description of medieval 
book-bindings, which systematically
register source of evidence and concluded facts. E.g., geometric 
topology of stratigarphic units and microsopic
stratigraphic interface properties are used to justify chronological 
sequence. In a simple model, this is atomic,
in a more general, it is probabilistic Bayesian. So, we would need a 
"Typed Named Graph", which restricts the
propositions in the Graph to a certain schema (topology, chronology), 
and then a relationship "is evidence for"
between the typed named graphs. The assertion itself forms part of the 
belief implicit in the archaeological

record.

If there is any logician on this mailing list, a proper formulation of 
such a construct and an abstract syntax for the CRM would be great to 
have!!!


We will try to suggest a graphic primitive, which is a bubble around 
the propositions with a "hot spot" on the

perimeter.

Suggestions most welcome!


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.
Named Graphs are new, so none is really "well known", but I would 
regard a skosified AAT as a Named Graph,
as well as all the RDF junks for LoD, once RDF regards any RDF file as 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Richard Light]

Martin,

Thanks you for this: I now have a much better idea of what you are 
trying to express.  I can also now see how the AAT is relevant to the 
discussion: it is precisely a set of propositions with an identity, or 
(to use SKOS terminology) a Concept Scheme.   (However, I can't see the 
AAT being cited as justification for an assertion or set of 
assertions.)  Is your idea of a "Named Graph" close to that of a Concept 
Scheme?


Richard

On 28/07/2014 11:34, martin wrote:

Dear Richard,

On 28/7/2014 11:41 ??, Richard Light wrote:

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?

I share your concerns :-) !


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.

Your are right!

Actually I see the "Named Graph" not as a particular RDF feature, but 
at the level of abstraction that Simon pointed
out: A set of propositions with a "historical" identity which is not 
reduced to the identity of the set itself.


The CRM uses an abstract data model of classes, superclasses, 
properties, superproperties etc., which is more or
less the stable core of all data structures and KR models used so far 
in industrial systems. We have however adopted
the term "property" from RDF, just to reduce the semantic gap for 
people now. Originally, we used TELOS terms, but KIF, OIL was equally 
compatible.


The requirement to introduce argumentation structures into consistent 
graphs of propositions is relatively new.
Reification is an atomic mechanism, which does not allow for 
describing that a set of propositions is believed
together. Therefore it looses an important part of the semantics of 
argumentation. A Named Graph is in my mind
an abstarction which subsumes reification. Reification is a workaround 
using a syntax which has not foreseen the problem before. Named Graph 
is a NEW logical construct not found in any other industrial KR model, 
and born out of a necessity that first showed up when integrating 
different sources. (Before, one could say AI just slept in a one-truth 
cyberworld with a god-like user or math on top of reality).


I believe we need the Named Graph construct as a logical form, not as 
an RDF syntax, if we want to integrate
provenance of knowledge with the CRM. So far, we have evidence of two 
real-life data structures, one is
archaeological excavation records, and another description of medieval 
book-bindings, which systematically
register source of evidence and concluded facts. E.g., geometric 
topology of stratigarphic units and microsopic
stratigraphic interface properties are used to justify chronological 
sequence. In a simple model, this is atomic,
in a more general, it is probabilistic Bayesian. So, we would need a 
"Typed Named Graph", which restricts the
propositions in the Graph to a certain schema (topology, chronology), 
and then a relationship "is evidence for"
between the typed named graphs. The assertion itself forms part of the 
belief implicit in the archaeological

record.

If there is any logician on this mailing list, a proper formulation of 
such a construct and an abstract syntax for the CRM would be great to 
have!!!


We will try to suggest a graphic primitive, which is a bubble around 
the propositions with a "hot spot" on the

perimeter.

Suggestions most welcome!


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.
Named Graphs are new, so none is really "well known", but I would 
regard a skosified AAT as a Named Graph,
as well as all the RDF junks for LoD, once RDF regards any RDF file as 
a Named Graph. The only condition is, that
two RDF Files with the same content and different URI are not regarded 
as being identical (owl:same_as).


Best,

Martin


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 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Dominic Oldman]

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 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Richard Light]

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 ??, 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" > 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 
Mob +44 7802 755 013 
E-mail ste...@paveprime.com 
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads


-Original Message-
From: Crm-sig [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 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[martin]

Dear Simon,

On 26/7/2014 12:41 πμ, Simon Spero wrote:

To clarify (or obfuscate),

The term "named graph", as used in  RDF, is defined in section 4 of 
the RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax Recommendation 
.


Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI
 or a blank node
(the graph name), and an RDF graph
.
[...]

NOTE

Despite the use of the word “name” in “named graph
”, thegraph
name is not
required todenote
the graph. It is
merely syntactically paired with the graph. RDF does not place any
formal restrictions on whatresource
the graph name
may denote, nor on the relationship between that resource and the
graph. A discussion of different RDF dataset semantics can be
found in [RDF11-DATASETS
].


That's clear enough :-)

I see your point now: The Named Graph is does not give a name to the set 
of triples in it, because two identical sets of triples can have 
different names. It is a new thing with a name, which contains a set of 
triples.



 I have no problems with having an  entity that made of one part that 
is a  Propositional Object, and another part that is an IRI. The 
obvious identity criteria for such an entity would include both 
components - two "named graph"s with different IRI parts would be 
distinct.
That is the idea. I'd see the propositions as "content" or "parts" of 
the Named Graph. At least implementations using reference counts
for identical triples in diferent Named Graphs regard them as 
non-identical, even if they have the same content. That makes them 
suitable for us to trace provenance as we would do with information 
objects. Information Objects acquire an individual history. With
Named Graphs, I can connect such a history. I could also use the Named 
Graph to model a belief - associating with the IRI a belief value, a

validity time-Span and a believing Actor.

Interesting cases are, when different people detect the same laws of 
nature or mathematics. We would keep the different traditions as
distinct, and eventually detect the identity, which merges the two 
traditions. Otherwise we would mess up reasoning about the information 
transfer. Also, we would mess up cases when different senses are 
intended with incidentally identical phrases.
So, I'd argue, semantics of Named Graphs that bind identity to the name 
plus content are indeed what we need to model information objects 
consisting of statements in form of triples.


Best,

Martin


( I also have no problem with the  Cyc mereological approach to the 
relationship between conceptual works and information bearing objects, 
so my judgement is suspect).


Simon


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM, martin > wrote:


Dear Simon,

I am not sure if I understand your argument. Any informartion
object might quite well have a name.
In particular it has an identity as a unit, and being a unit is
not equal to any of its propositions. This is probably
the same as modelling the Named Graphs as tuples (name, set).

I'd however question your statement:
"Named graphs are not graphs that are named; they are a tuple..."
I'd say, they are graphs that are named
in the framework of RDF encoding using a particular syntax. They
can be modelled mathematically as tuples"
A tuple (name, set) is equally meaningless out of the context to
which such a model refers to. It could be
anything you would like to use it for. That's maths. Isn't it?

In other words, yes, an information object has not only content.
It has a unity, an identity, and even a provenance.

The question is, if two information objects are identical if the
contain the same set of symbols or propositions
but have different provenance. This is particularly a problem with
very small information objects.

Best,

Martin





On 24/7/2014 7:57 πμ, 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Simon Spero]

To clarify (or obfuscate),

The term "named graph", as used in  RDF, is defined in section 4 of the RDF
1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax Recommendation
.

Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI
 or a blank node (the graph
name), and an RDF graph 
.
[...]

NOTE

Despite the use of the word “name” in “named graph
”, the graph name
 is not required to
denote  the graph. It is
merely syntactically paired with the graph. RDF does not place any formal
restrictions on what resource
 the graph name may
denote, nor on the relationship between that resource and the graph. A
discussion of different RDF dataset semantics can be found in [
RDF11-DATASETS ].

 I have no problems with having an  entity that made of one part that is a
 Propositional Object, and another part that is an IRI. The obvious
identity criteria for such an entity would include both components - two
"named graph"s with different IRI parts would be distinct.

( I also have no problem with the  Cyc mereological approach to the
relationship between conceptual works and information bearing objects, so
my judgement is suspect).


Simon


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM, martin  wrote:

>  Dear Simon,
>
> I am not sure if I understand your argument. Any informartion object might
> quite well have a name.
> In particular it has an identity as a unit, and being a unit is not equal
> to any of its propositions. This is probably
> the same as modelling the Named Graphs as tuples (name, set).
>
> I'd however question your statement:
> "Named graphs are not graphs that are named; they are a tuple..." I'd say,
> they are graphs that are named
> in the framework of RDF encoding using a particular syntax. They can be
> modelled mathematically as tuples"
> A tuple (name, set) is equally meaningless out of the context to which
> such a model refers to. It could be
> anything you would like to use it for. That's maths. Isn't it?
>
> In other words, yes, an information object has not only content. It has a
> unity, an identity, and even a provenance.
>
> The question is, if two information objects are identical if the contain
> the same set of symbols or propositions
> but have different provenance. This is particularly a problem with very
> small information objects.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24/7/2014 7:57 πμ, 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.
> On Jul 24, 2014 12:15 AM, "Stephen Stead"  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 <%2B44%2020%208668%203075>
>> Mob +44 7802 755 013 <%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
>> E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
>> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Crm-sig [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
>> > 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[martin]

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 ??, 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" > 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 
Mob +44 7802 755 013 
E-mail ste...@paveprime.com 
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads


-Original Message-
From: Crm-sig [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 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[martin]

Dear Simon,

I am not sure if I understand your argument. Any informartion object 
might quite well have a name.
In particular it has an identity as a unit, and being a unit is not 
equal to any of its propositions. This is probably

the same as modelling the Named Graphs as tuples (name, set).

I'd however question your statement:
"Named graphs are not graphs that are named; they are a tuple..." I'd 
say, they are graphs that are named
in the framework of RDF encoding using a particular syntax. They can be 
modelled mathematically as tuples"
A tuple (name, set) is equally meaningless out of the context to which 
such a model refers to. It could be

anything you would like to use it for. That's maths. Isn't it?

In other words, yes, an information object has not only content. It has 
a unity, an identity, and even a provenance.


The question is, if two information objects are identical if the contain 
the same set of symbols or propositions
but have different provenance. This is particularly a problem with very 
small information objects.


Best,

Martin




On 24/7/2014 7:57 ??, 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.


On Jul 24, 2014 12:15 AM, "Stephen Stead" > 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 
Mob +44 7802 755 013 
E-mail ste...@paveprime.com 
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads


-Original Message-
From: Crm-sig [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 BM38850.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 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Simon Spero]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:03 AM, 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).
>

A triple is a true proposition*; duplicates are redundant (A and A <-> A).
 However, there can be multiple speech acts asserting that the  proposition
is true.  There are ways of giving semantics to named graphs that enable
that; however, the semantics of named graphs were deliberately left
underspecified (a decision that was not uncontroversial).

In the end, what was published was a Working Group Note listing some of the
possibilities that were argued for - see:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-datasets/ .

There are other possible semantics that named graphs might have ; for
example, the name in a named graph might denote some graph containing the
reified forms of the statements in the graph part of the named graph. This
differs from the quotational semantics given in §3.7 of the note cited
above given the presence of  blank nodes - ("one does not simply quantify
into quoted contexts!").

Since the CRM does not require that the propositional content of an
propositional object be true, it might be possible to avoid these questions
by dealing with  Graphs (as sets of propositions), and assertions of the
contents of those Graphs directly .

Simon

* which is why, now that RDF 1.1 make any triple will an ill-typed literal
false, any graph that contains such  triple is inconsistent.

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Richard Light]

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.


On Jul 24, 2014 12:15 AM, "Stephen Stead" > 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 
Mob +44 7802 755 013 
E-mail ste...@paveprime.com 
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads


-Original Message-
From: Crm-sig [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 BM38850.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 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Simon Spero]

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.
On Jul 24, 2014 12:15 AM, "Stephen Stead"  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
> Mob +44 7802 755 013
> E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Crm-sig [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 BM38850.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 BM38850.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 

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Stephen Stead]

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 
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads


-Original Message-
From: Crm-sig [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 BM38850.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 BM38850.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
> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>  
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Øyvind Eide]

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 BM38850.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 BM38850.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
> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>  
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

[Stephen Stead]

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 BM38850.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 BM38850.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

LinkedIn Profile  
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads