From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr
<mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
To: crm-sig <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment
Dear All,
Here the old scope note:
E13 Attribute Assignment
Subclass of: E7 Activity
Superclass of: E14 Condition Assessment
E15 Identifier Assignment
E16 Measurement
E17 Type Assignment
Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making assertions about
properties of an object or any relation between two items or concepts.
This class allows the documentation of how the respective assignment came about, and
whose opinion it was. All the attributes or properties assigned in such an action can
also be seen as directly attached to the respective item or concept, possibly as a
collection of contradictory values. All cases of properties in this model that are also
described indirectly through an action are characterised as "short cuts" of
this action. This redundant modelling of two alternative views is preferred because many
implementations may have good reasons to model either the action or the short cut, and
the relation between both alternatives can be captured by simple rules.
In particular, the class describes the actions of people making propositions
and statements during certain museum procedures, e.g. the person and date when
a condition statement was made, an identifier was assigned, the museum object
was measured, etc. Which kinds of such assignments and statements need to be
documented explicitly in structures of a schema rather than free text, depends
on if this information should be accessible by structured queries.
=====================================================================
Here my new proposed scope note:
E13 Attribute Assignment
Subclass of: E7 Activity
Superclass of: E14 Condition Assessment
E15 Identifier Assignment
E16 Measurement
E17 Type Assignment
Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making assertions about
properties of an object or any relation between two items or concepts. The type
of the property asserted to hold between two items or concepts can be described
by the property P2 has type.
This class allows for the documentation of how the respective assignment came
about, and whose opinion it was. Note that all instances of properties
described in a knowledge base are the opinion of someone. Per default, they are
the opinion of the team maintaining the knowledge base. This fact must not
individually be registered for all instances of properties provided by the
maintaining team, because it would result in an endless recursion of whose
opinion was the description of an opinion. Therefore the use of E13 Attribute
Assignment marks the fact, that the maintaining team is in general neutral to
the validity of the respective assertion, but registers another ones opinion
and how it came about.
All properties assigned in such an action can also be seen as directly relating the
respective pair of items or concepts. Multiple use of E13 Attribute Assignment may
possibly lead to a collection of contradictory values. All cases of properties in this
model that are also described indirectly through a subclass of E13 Attribute Assignment
are characterised as "short cuts" of a path via this subclass. This redundant
modelling of two alternative views is preferred because many implementations may have
good reasons to model either the action of assertion or the short cut, and the relation
between both alternative can be captured by simple rules.
In particular, the class describes the actions of people making propositions
and statements during certain museum procedures, e.g. the person and date when
a condition statement was made, an identifier was assigned, the museum object
was measured, etc. Which kinds of such assignments and statements need to be
documented explicitly in structures of a schema rather than free text, depends
on if this information should be accessible by structured queries.
Best,
Martin
On 2/13/2018 12:48 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear All,
The scope note of E13 must be updated:
A) the property type it refers to should be described by P2 has type of the E13
instance. Then it is
isomorphic with an RDF reification statement.
B) The epistemology should be described more precisely: It describes that the
maintainers of the knowledge base are not directly responsible for the validity
of the statement.
Best,
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:
mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto: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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:
mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto: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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180319/9f5ad147/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
------------------------------
End of Crm-sig Digest, Vol 134, Issue 26
****************************************
