Dear all, Sorry for joining the discussion so late.
The “Pxx conceptually follows “ can be used to create a (partial) ordering of concepts (classes). It is at a first view, a handy property. However, it may be problematic to use types as qualification of other types in this way. For example, according to the modeling principles document one should avoid concepts like ‘large’ and ‘small’ (e.g. a large mouse and a small elephant) as well as “good” and “bad”. The last two examples are examples where the relations are defined according to a predefined linear scale/dimension. The first example is not generally true. OED: “1. Estimated by average; i.e. by equally distributing the aggregate inequalities of a series among all the individuals of which the series is composed. 2. a. Equal to what would be the result of taking an average; medium, ordinary; of the usual or prevalent standard.” I question if such a property is a good idea inside the type hierarchy. Best, Christian-Emil ________________________________ From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of George Bruseker <bruse...@ics.forth.gr> Sent: 04 January 2019 15:13 To: Martin Doerr Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] **NEW ISSUE** Ordinal Property for E55 Type Dear all, Overall, I would say it sounds like a good proposition. I post my replies to Martin’s queries below. With regards to label, I agree with Franco that greater/lesser is not right, but I’m also not sure that follows/precedes is a good terminology either. I don’t think it is very heuristically useful phrasing to say that ‘good' precedes ‘poor’. In this case, because it is quite a technical matter, could we not make the label somewhat technical? Something like, is_ordinal_superior_to / is_ordinal_inferior_of? By qualifying the superior, we make clear we mean in the sense of some abstract scale rather than general greatness. Dear All, Very nice all that, but the critical question for a concept to enter CRM base is: What is the scientific question in an information integration environment, that needs this property to make the relevant connection/ inference, To me it meets a known need in documentation where we have various qualitative relations of greater/lesser than some other concept. This happens also in conservation (conservation state = good, poor), in risk analysis (‘high’, ‘low’) and so on. I think the function it would serve is to be able to not lose these differentiations and to be able to query on them. Which of these objects are in poor state and high risk of damage? and further: Why is that proposed for CRM base and not for SKOS? We control CRMbase? and finally: What is the coverage of problems that benefit from this property? Questions of qualitative judgments expressed relative to one another encountered CH documentation. These concerns are part of the methodology we follow, and most substantial. We must make sure they appear in the "principles". True. Best, George Best, Martin On 1/3/2019 7:32 PM, Stephen Stead wrote: Excellent then the revised property, scope note and examples would be:- Pxx conceptually follows (conceptually precedes) Domain: E55 Type Range: E55 Type Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) This property allows instances of E55 Type to be declared as having an order relative to other instances of E55 Type, without necessarily having a specific value associated with either instance. This allows, for example, for an E55 Type instance representing the concept of "good" to follow the E55 Type instance representing the concept of "average". This property is transitive, and thus if "average" follows "poor", then "good" also follows "poor". In the domain of statistics, types that participate in this kind of relationship are called "Ordinal Variables"; as opposed to those without order which are called "Nominal Variables". This property allows for queries that select based on the relative position of participating E55 Types. Examples: * Good (E55) conceptually follows Average (E55) * Map Scale 1:10000 (E55) conceptually follows Map Scale 1:20000 (E55) * Fire Hazard Rating 4 (E55) conceptually follows Fire Hazard Rating 3 (E55) How does that seem? Rgds SdS Stephen Stead Director Paveprime Ltd 35 Downs Court Rd Purley, Surrey UK, CR8 1BF Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Fax +44 20 8763 1739 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail ste...@paveprime.com<mailto:ste...@paveprime.com> LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- ------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Doerr Honorary Head of the 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 Vox:+30(2810)391625 Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
