Thomas, Good question! You are quite correct that we haven't tried to include uncertainty in Arches.
One reason is pretty basic: certainty is quite subjective from person to person. For example: most people agree that the earth is spherical. But a "flat-earther" may be very certain that the earth is not a sphere, but is instead a plane. His certainty does not make him correct, it merely states the degree to which he believes in his interpretation. Clearly, you can be very certain and very wrong at the same time. I guess my point is that in many cases "certainty" says more about the person making the assertion than it does about the thing being described. OK, all philosophy aside, one could easily extend any Arches graph to include a "certainty node". Such a node could point to a thesaurus (as many of the nodes in Arches already do), allowing a user to select from a list of "uncertainty levels". Really, any Arches graph could include a "certainty node" under any entity that you might want to qualify (for example, one certainty node for period and another certainty node for heritage type). Really, the hard part is not in getting Arches to allow you to add an "uncertainty level" to your cultural heritage data. Rather, the difficult thing is to decide how you'll get different people to agree on what constitutes certain vs. uncertain interpretations of heritage. Sorry that I can't be any more helpful... However, I'm very interested to hear how you will model uncertainty and how you will get people to implement it consistently. Please keep me posted! Cheers, Dennis On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:41, thomas.enge...@gmail.com wrote: > I have a question about conceptual modeling in CIDOC CRM, maybe there is > someone one the list who is able to provide some guidance. > > As posted before, we are trying to integrate research data of neolithic sites > into Arches. Now, naturally a significant part of this data has a level of > "certainty" to which the information is correct. e.g. a site can consist of > some features for certain (in this case modeled in the Archaeological > Heritage (Site).E27 - Component.E18 relationship) but if others exist is > uncertain. We believe this valuable information should not get lost (quite > often theory construction is based on such information). > > For example it could be uncertain if an archaeological feature is to be named > "pit" or "ditch" - or if it exists at all. Another example could be the > questionable relationship of a findspot to a certain archaeological period. > To make it even more difficult, different authors could have different > thoughts on that. > > As far as we can see, the expression of such "uncertainty" is not covered by > Arches yet. Is there a concept for the integration of such data in the > future? We are currently thinking into potential solutions but are > struggeling to find adequate expressions for uncertain information in CIDOC. > > thanks, Thomas > > -- > -- To post, send email to archesproject@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe, > send email to archesproject+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more > information, visit https://groups.google.com/d/forum/archesproject?hl=en > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Arches Project" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to archesproject+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- To post, send email to archesproject@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe, send email to archesproject+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more information, visit https://groups.google.com/d/forum/archesproject?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Arches Project" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to archesproject+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
