Issue 11 in information-artifact-ontology: update narrative object/report

[codesite...@google.com]

Status: New
Owner: mcourtot
Labels: Type-Term Priority-Medium

New issue 11 by mcourtot: update narrative object/report
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=11

Hi,
During the OBI workshop in Vancouver the OBI group identified some terms to
be added/updated in IAO. If there is no objection this term will be updated
in the IAO file on Tuesday March 10th.

report # would replace narrative object
subclass of: information content entity
definition: A report is an information content entity assembled by an
author for the purpose of providing information for the audience.
A report is the output of a documenting process and has the objective to be
consumed by a specific audience. Topic of the report is on something that
has completed. A report is not a single figure. Examples of reports are
journal article, patent application, grant progress report, case report
(not patience record)
editor note: would replace narrative object
definition source :GROUP:OBI" with an editor note "2009-xx-xx: work on this
term has been finalized during the OBI workshop winter 2009"

Melanie

--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings

[codesite...@google.com]

Comment #1 on issue 11 by alanruttenberg: update narrative object/report
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=11

report does not replace narrative object. It is a subclass of narrative
object. Other types of narrative objects
include fiction. Report as subclass of narrative object, with definition as
give makes sense.

[codesite...@google.com]

Comment #2 on issue 11 by jonathan.rees: update narrative object/report
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=11

Regarding comment #1 "Other types of narrative objects include fiction."

This may be, but regarding fiction, narrative object is a subclass of
information content entity, which is
defined as follows

"an information content entity is an entity that is generically dependent
on some artifact and stands in relation
of aboutness to some entity"

where "aboutness" is defined by

"a representation is_about anything exactly when some part of the
information_artifact denotes the entity"

Many works of fiction are not about any (real) entity. I thought fiction
was out of scope for IAO for this reason?

Can you give another example of narrative object (which would necessarily
be about some entity) that is not a
report?

[codesite...@google.com]

Comment #3 on issue 11 by alanruttenberg: update narrative object/report
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=11

The working definition of aboutness is that a part denotes. Works of
fiction don't spring out of thin air. But for an
easy example, consider a novel about what might happen if President Obama
decided to take a vacation on the
moon. 'obama' denotes, as does 'moon', even if 'Obama on the moon' does not.

[Barry Smith]

At 08:35 PM 3/6/2009, codesite...@google.com wrote:


>Comment #2 on issue 11 by jonathan.rees: update narrative object/report
>http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=11
>
>Regarding comment #1 "Other types of narrative objects include fiction."
>
>This may be, but regarding fiction, narrative object is a subclass of
>information content entity, which is
>defined as follows
>
>"an information content entity is an entity that is generically dependent
>on some artifact and stands in relation
>of aboutness to some entity"

I would prefer: and is intended to stand in a relation of aboutness
to some entity

I agree that fiction is out of scope.
BS

[Alan Ruttenberg]

> I agree that fiction is out of scope.

Then so will hypotheses need to be out of scope. Perhaps you should reconsider.
Please see my response in the issue list.
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=11

-Alan

[Barry Smith]

I think hypotheses are not information content entities, but they are
information artifacts nonetheless





>

[Bjoern Peters]

Yes, please! This is a point I have been trying to get at for a while
now. It is unclear how 'is about' should be used for hypotheses, plan
specifications, blueprints, etc. I have been suggesting a different
relation, maybe labeled 'specifies', which connects a hypothesis / plan
specifications / blueprint with entities that conform with it.
Unsurprisingly, I would like to call hypothesis etc. 'specifications'

- Bjoern.

[Alan Ruttenberg]

The we need to redefine information content entities. It was intended
at the start that information content entities were the upper level
class for sentient derived information/ information with intent behind
it. The other category are the things like (if they are information)
genetic information.

I don't believe there is a good basis for distinguishing the suggested
*other* information artifacts from the ones intended for this
ontology, and there isn't a definition of aboutness on the table other
than the one which I have proposed, and which covers things like
fiction just fine, albeit in a way you may find surprising.

We are in danger of going in circles, since we had discussed this earlier.

So, I would respectfully like to put my foot down and stop this.
Narrative objects include fiction. There are no information artifacts
(i.e. those brought about intentionally) other than information
content entities.

If there is a need for a class of entities with a stronger/different
kind of aboutness, please offer a definition of aboutness and we will
define a class of entities which engage in this aboutness(2) relation.
As part of IAO, please.

It helps not at all to put hypothesis and fiction out of the ontology,
and it illuminates not at all to say they are not information content
entities, as that term was coined as part of the development of the
ontology and has no meaning outside it. That is reasoning from labels,
instead of definitions.

-Alan