From: Øyvind E. <oyv...@il...> - 2010-11-12 15:06:01
|
Thank you for a good meeting today! For those not present: sorry you missed it, but the minutes will be available soon! As we discussed very briefly: the object element is requested and, given that we have been discussing requesting an element with the same name, we should really give some input! The feature request is here: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2811239&group_id=106328&atid=644065 Please click on the "Comments" link to the the discussion up to now. I am sorry I have missed this until now, but there is still time for us to add to the discussion. We can discuss it here for a few days, then decide what kind of an input should be given to the feature request. Do we need a more general object element? Should its scope include physical object? Conceptual objects? Both? Please comment! Regards, Øyvind |
From: Peter S. <st...@ed...> - 2010-12-03 15:00:09
|
Dear Øyvind et al., I think you're still waiting for some response from the community -- let me start: > As we discussed very briefly: the object element is requested and, > given that we have been discussing requesting an element with the same > name, we should really give some input! The feature request is here: > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2811239&group_id=106328&atid=644065 To my understanding the object idea of the ms-people is rather narrow and everybody dealig with ontologies will propably think of "object" as something bigger. Having read through Øyvind's paper [1] again I found the proposed tei elements "physicalObject" and "conceptualObject", which are from a naive point subclasses of "object" (= some cidoc crm "thing"?) -- while the proposed manuscript object would clearly be a subclass of physicalObject. By the way, there is some similar muddle with the tei element musicNotation which is part of the msdescription(!) and now blocks a broader usage within tei:text. So, my conclusions are: 1. Try to convince the ms-people to rename their "object" to something more precise, e.g. textBearingObject 2. In our own interest we should enforce discussion about objects within TEI and propably should propose "physicalObject" and "conceptualObject" along with the extension of tei:relation to link these objects (cf. [1]) Does this make sense? All the best Peter [1] Christian-Emil Ore and Øyvind Eide: "TEI and cultural heritage ontologies: Exchange of information?", Literary and Linguistic Computing, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2009, pp. 161ff |
From: Torsten S. <sch...@ha...> - 2010-12-06 15:56:11
|
Hi Peter, ms-people's view is not at all "narrow" ;-) At least since 2008 (TEI meeting in London) ms-people have thought about an element "textBearingObject" (TBODesc). We started discussing such but were "driven down" by OVICM (one-very-important-Council-member). ;-) Anyway, in the SIGs meeting in Zadar the idea has been revived to (try to) introduce the TBO (or whatever it might be called then) and to get in contact with all the other groups (music, correspondence, ontology etc) in order to coordinate the efforts and exchange ideas. Cf. http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/SIGMS_Minutes_20101112 (reads: "three directions of this work", means: "get away from <msDesc> towards something TBO-like) We haven't really discussed how to organise the discussion/work so right now everybody interested is highly welcome. Best, Torsten Am 03.12.2010 15:47, schrieb Peter Stadler: > Dear Øyvind et al., > > I think you're still waiting for some response from the community -- let me start: > >> As we discussed very briefly: the object element is requested and, >> given that we have been discussing requesting an element with the same >> name, we should really give some input! The feature request is here: >> >> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2811239&group_id=106328&atid=644065 > To my understanding the object idea of the ms-people is rather narrow and everybody dealig with ontologies will propably think of "object" as something bigger. Having read through Øyvind's paper [1] again I found the proposed tei elements "physicalObject" and "conceptualObject", which are from a naive point subclasses of "object" (= some cidoc crm "thing"?) -- while the proposed manuscript object would clearly be a subclass of physicalObject. > > By the way, there is some similar muddle with the tei element musicNotation which is part of the msdescription(!) and now blocks a broader usage within tei:text. > > So, my conclusions are: > 1. Try to convince the ms-people to rename their "object" to something more precise, e.g. textBearingObject > 2. In our own interest we should enforce discussion about objects within TEI and propably should propose "physicalObject" and "conceptualObject" along with the extension of tei:relation to link these objects (cf. [1]) > > Does this make sense? > > All the best > Peter > > > [1] Christian-Emil Ore and Øyvind Eide: "TEI and cultural heritage ontologies: Exchange of information?", Literary and Linguistic Computing, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2009, pp. 161ff > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App& Earn a Chance To Win $500! > Tap into the largest installed PC base& get more eyes on your game by > optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the > Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Tei-ontology-sig mailing list > Tei...@li... -- Torsten Schassan Digitale Editionen Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165), schassan {at} hab.de http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/europeana-regia.htm http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/weiss64.htm |
From: Øyvind E. <oyv...@il...> - 2010-12-07 12:06:56
|
Dear Peter and Torsten, it is good to see that you pick up on this! A part of the CRM class hierarchy goes like this (simplified): - E71 Man-made thing - - E24 Physical man-made thing - - - E22 Man-made object - - - - E84 Information carrier - - E28 Conceptual object - - - E89 Propositional object - - - - E73 Information object - - - - - E31 Document The there is a property P128 carries (or, reversely, is carried by) connecting an E24 Physical man made thing (or any descendant) to an E73 Information object (or any descendant). If something in TEI is called an "object" in the context of manuscript description, that may be fine for all I know - manuscript description is not something I know very much about (apart from reading them every now and then). The problem is, however, similar to the old (pre P5) element "event" - it was meant for things happening during an oral interview, but the name suggested otherwise. "object" as a TEI element may cause confusion, and may beg for tag abuse. If textBearingObject does not work (I see the general line of argumentation against this, I think), what about informationCarrier? I would, however, include books and rolls. Maybe that is a problem? As for Peter's conclusion 2, I am very happy to see a discussion on that, but maybe in a different thread in order to keep things nice and tidy? Regards, Øyvind Den 6. des.. 2010 kl. 16.25 skrev Torsten Schassan: > Hi Peter, > > ms-people's view is not at all "narrow" ;-) > At least since 2008 (TEI meeting in London) ms-people have thought > about > an element "textBearingObject" (TBODesc). We started discussing such > but > were "driven down" by OVICM (one-very-important-Council-member). ;-) > > Anyway, in the SIGs meeting in Zadar the idea has been revived to (try > to) introduce the TBO (or whatever it might be called then) and to get > in contact with all the other groups (music, correspondence, ontology > etc) in order to coordinate the efforts and exchange ideas. > > Cf. http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/SIGMS_Minutes_20101112 (reads: > "three directions of this work", means: "get away from <msDesc> > towards > something TBO-like) > We haven't really discussed how to organise the discussion/work so > right > now everybody interested is highly welcome. > > Best, Torsten > > > Am 03.12.2010 15:47, schrieb Peter Stadler: >> Dear Øyvind et al., >> >> I think you're still waiting for some response from the community >> -- let me start: >> >>> As we discussed very briefly: the object element is requested and, >>> given that we have been discussing requesting an element with the >>> same >>> name, we should really give some input! The feature request is here: >>> >>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2811239&group_id=106328&atid=644065 >> To my understanding the object idea of the ms-people is rather >> narrow and everybody dealig with ontologies will propably think of >> "object" as something bigger. Having read through Øyvind's paper >> [1] again I found the proposed tei elements "physicalObject" and >> "conceptualObject", which are from a naive point subclasses of >> "object" (= some cidoc crm "thing"?) -- while the proposed >> manuscript object would clearly be a subclass of physicalObject. >> >> By the way, there is some similar muddle with the tei element >> musicNotation which is part of the msdescription(!) and now blocks >> a broader usage within tei:text. >> >> So, my conclusions are: >> 1. Try to convince the ms-people to rename their "object" to >> something more precise, e.g. textBearingObject >> 2. In our own interest we should enforce discussion about objects >> within TEI and propably should propose "physicalObject" and >> "conceptualObject" along with the extension of tei:relation to link >> these objects (cf. [1]) >> >> Does this make sense? >> >> All the best >> Peter >> >> >> [1] Christian-Emil Ore and Øyvind Eide: "TEI and cultural heritage >> ontologies: Exchange of information?", Literary and Linguistic >> Computing, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2009, pp. 161ff >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App& Earn a Chance To Win $500! >> Tap into the largest installed PC base& get more eyes on your game >> by >> optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with >> the >> Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for >> grabs. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Tei-ontology-sig mailing list >> Tei...@li... > > > -- > Torsten Schassan > Digitale Editionen > Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen > Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel > Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165), schassan {at} hab.de > > http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/europeana-regia.htm > http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/weiss64.htm > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > What happens now with your Lotus Notes apps - do you make another > costly > upgrade, or settle for being marooned without product support? Time > to move > off Lotus Notes and onto the cloud with Force.com, apps are easier > to build, > use, and manage than apps on traditional platforms. Sign up for the > Lotus > Notes Migration Kit to learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/salesforce-d2d > _______________________________________________ > Tei-ontology-sig mailing list > Tei...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tei-ontology-sig |