Posted by Stephen Stead 18/07/2014 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. 1 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 BM000038850.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. 2 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 BM000038850.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: Posted by Øyvind Eide 23/07/2014 Dear Steve, This sounds good to me. Do you think an example of a named graph should be added as well? Posted by Stephen Stead 24/07/2014 Can you think of a named graph that would be sufficiently iconic to make a good example? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Simon Spero 24/07/2014 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. 3 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. Posted by Richard Light 24/07/2014 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. Posted by Simon Spero 24/07/2014 On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk> 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!"). 4 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. Posted by Martin 25/07/2014 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. Posted by Martin 25/07/2014 Dear Richard, 5 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. 6 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Simon Spero 26/07/2014 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 [RDF11DATASETS]. 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 7 Posted by Martin 27/07/2014 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”, 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]. 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 different 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 8 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Richard Light 28/07/2014 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Dominic 28/07/2014 I am slightly confused about this discussion. 9 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. Posted by Martin 28/07/2014 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 ! 10 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 microscopic 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! 11 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). Posted by Richard Light 28/07/2014 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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Richard 29/07/2014 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/ 12 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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Christian Emil 29/07/2014 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. 13 Posted by Martin 29/07/2014 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" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Martin 29/07/2014 Hi Richard, On 29/7/2014 12:06 πμ, 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.) 14 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Martin 29/07/2014 Dear All, If I am not mistaken, this is an example of a Nemaed Graph: <uuid:5f26a9bb-85ff-453b-8cd2-60717ceb54f6> { 15 <uuid:198509e3-dc91-4553-aead-23504f05f201> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoccrm/P50_has_current_keeper> <www.britishmuseum.org/>. } ?? Posted by Barry Norton 29/07/2014 Yes, that’s a single-triple named graph defined in TriG (though, again, uuid: is not the correct scheme for RFC 4122 compliant UUID-based URNs) B Posted by Richard Light 29/07/2014 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Simon Spero 29/07/2014 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. 16 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). Posted by Martin 30/ 07/2014 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, 17 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. Posted by Christian Emil 31/07/2014 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"?. Posted by Martin 31/07/2014 Dear Christian-Emil, On 31/7/2014 10:03 πμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: 18 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? 19