Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

[Franco Niccolucci]

I wrote on this topic a paper with Sorin Hermon, some time ago (2017)

"Expressing Reliability with CIDOC CRM", IJDL, 18(4), 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-016-0195-1

It’s available from the IJDL, from the ACM DL, and from me as a self-stored 
paper.

In short, it shows how to deal with trust in the Re-use framework of FAIR 
without using CRMinf. The necessary concepts are just subclasses and 
subproperties of existing ones. They receive special names just for the sake of 
clarity, but they could just be typized e.g. (Z denotes the new classes):

Z1 Reliability Assessment = E16 Measurement + has type “reliability assessment"
Z2 Reliability = E54 Dimension + has type “reliability"

Sooner or later, I should re-examine the issue in light of the recent 
discussions. 

In my opinion, “trust" should be machine-actionable otherwise Re-use becomes a 
purely human activity, but an undoable one as we don’t have enough time to read 
everything and take the necessary decisions, discarding fake news, as Gardin 
stated 21 years ago (*). Trust is a chain and at some point one of the referees 
needs to be “a honourable man” (**), whose assessment is automatically applied 
to the data together, and if too low it automatically discredits the data and 
avoids re-use or warns against it.

There are other divertissements of mine on the topic I’ll gladly share with 
those interested.

Franco

(*) Gardin, J.-C. “Calcul et narrativité dans les publications archéologiques”, 
Archeologia e Calcolatori, 10, 1999, 63-78. Open access.
(**) as everybody knows, this quote actually referred to an untrustworthy person

Best

Franco

Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS

Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy


> Il giorno 8 lug 2020, alle ore 15:10, Olivier Marlet 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Dear All,
> The notions of trust and adoption of beliefs are very interesting because 
> they are directly related to the Re-use of FAIR principles. It is certainly a 
> notion on which the ARIADNEplus working group will work in the sub-task 
> 4.4.12 "CIDOC-CRM mapping for Excavation archives" dealing with the link 
> between data and publications.
> Best,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> De: "Martin Doerr" 
> À: "crm-sig" 
> Envoyé: Mercredi 8 Juillet 2020 13:29:49
> Objet: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Scope Note of CRMinf -> Belief Adoption
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> The Scope Note of I7 will be corrected.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 7/8/2020 12:46 PM, BOTTINI Thomas wrote:
> Dear all,
> Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier,
>  
> It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that every I2 
> Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was not able to deduce 
> from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the acceptance of somebody else's 
> conclusion about some state of affairs". Stephen's wording is extremely clear.
>  
> And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1.
> This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2
>  
> Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and graphical 
> resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our further work.
>  
> Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf 🙏🏼
>  
> ——
> Thomas Bottini
> Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223
>  
>  
> De : Crm-sig  au nom de Olivier Marlet 
> 
> Date : mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19
> À : "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
> Objet : Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption
>  
> Dear Thomas,
> 
> For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations, we used 
> the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation according to 
> Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the CRMinf is directly 
> inspired by this theory.
> In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based on 
> observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is known and 
> acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for example); 3/ 
> arguments built from previous conclusions.
> 
> 
> 1/ For a proposition based on observation data or comparison data, mapping 
> could be:
> S15_Observable_Entity → O11_was_described_by → S6_Data_evaluation (IsA 
> I5_Inference_Making IsA I1_Argumentation) → J2_conclued_that → I2_Belief → 
> J4_that → I4_Proposition_Set
> I5_Inference_Making → J3_applies → I3_Inference_Logic
>  
> 2/ For a proposition based on reference data, mapping could be:
> E31_Document (IsA E73_Information_Object) → J7_is_evidence_for → 
> I7_Belief_Adoption (IsA I1_Argumentation) → J6_adopted → I2_Belief → J4_that 
> → I4_Proposition_Set
>  
> 3/ For intermediate or final propositions, mapping could be:
> I4_Proposition_Set → J4_is_subject_of → I2_Belief → J1_was_premise_for → 
> S8_Categorical_hypothesis_building (IsA I5_Inference_Making IsA 
> I1_Argumentation) → J2_conclued_that → I2_Belief → J4_that → 
> I4

Re: [Crm-sig] Modes / Styles of Representing CRM / Ontologies in Diagrams

[Olivier Marlet]

Dear George, 

I have just proposed a model representation for the CRMinf in another exchange. 
I put it back here. 
I use for that the free software DIA (http://dia-installer.de/) and the color 
code used is the one of the CIDOC card game that you know well ;) 
I produced the same for the CRMarchaeo and for the CRMba. 

Best, 

Olivier 


De: "George Bruseker"  
À: "crm-sig"  
Envoyé: Mercredi 8 Juillet 2020 12:40:29 
Objet: [Crm-sig] Modes / Styles of Representing CRM / Ontologies in Diagrams 

Dear all, 

In the context of Issue 457 

[ 
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-457-harmonization-of-graphical-documentation-about-crm
 | 
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-457-harmonization-of-graphical-documentation-about-crm
 ] 

We are looking to create style guides for the CRM SIG on how to formulate the 
diagrams that will go in the documentation (e.g. publication of the standard, 
web publications etc.). The goal is to create consistent looking documentation 
that is easily accessible to the CIDOC CRM audience (domain specialists, 
developers, ontological modellers etc.) This would be an effort to both create 
a clean and consistent look for the representations, to lower barriers to 
understanding/adopting CRM, and to more efficiently produce this documentation. 

Currently we are looking to put together proposals on the possible parameters 
of the style guide, such as which kinds of arrows to use for general 
properties, for IsA property, which kinds of boxes/bubbles to use for classes 
and instances etc. 

If you have best practice in mind that should be taken into account, can you 
please share to the list. We will take on board what is shared and make a 
proposal of different possibilities for voting on by the SIG membership. 

All best, 

George 

___ 
Crm-sig mailing list 
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr 
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig 
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

[Olivier Marlet]

Dear All, 
The notions of trust and adoption of beliefs are very interesting because they 
are directly related to the Re-use of FAIR principles. It is certainly a notion 
on which the ARIADNEplus working group will work in the sub-task 4.4.12 
"CIDOC-CRM mapping for Excavation archives" dealing with the link between data 
and publications. 
Best, 

Olivier 


De: "Martin Doerr"  
À: "crm-sig"  
Envoyé: Mercredi 8 Juillet 2020 13:29:49 
Objet: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Scope Note of CRMinf -> Belief Adoption 

Dear All, 

The Scope Note of I7 will be corrected. 

Best, 

Martin 

On 7/8/2020 12:46 PM, BOTTINI Thomas wrote: 





Dear all, 

Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier, 



It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that every I2 
Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was not able to deduce 
from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the acceptance of somebody else's 
conclusion about some state of affairs". Stephen's wording is extremely clear. 



And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1. 

This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2 



Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and graphical 
resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our further work. 



Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf 🙏🏼 




—— 

Thomas Bottini 
Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223 







De : Crm-sig [ mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr | 
 ] au nom de Olivier Marlet [ 
mailto:olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr |  ] 
Date : mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19 
À : [ mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr | "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" ] [ 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr |  ] 
Objet : Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption 





Dear Thomas, 



For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations, we used 
the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation according to 
Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the CRMinf is directly 
inspired by this theory. 
In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based on 
observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is known and 
acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for example); 3/ 
arguments built from previous conclusions. 




1/ For a proposition based on observation data or comparison data , mapping 
could be: 
BQ_BEGIN


S15_Observable_Entity → O11_was_described_by → S6_Data_evaluation ( IsA 
I5_Inference_Making IsA I1_Argumentation) → J2_conclued_that → I2_Belief → 
J4_that → I4_Proposition_Set 

I5_Inference_Making → J3_applies → I3_Inference_Logic 





2/ For a proposition based on reference data , mapping could be: 
BQ_BEGIN


E31_Document ( IsA E73_Information_Object) → J7_is_evidence_for → 
I7_Belief_Adoption ( IsA I1_Argumentation) → J6_adopted → I2_Belief → J4_that → 
I4_Proposition_Set 
BQ_END




3/ For intermediate or final propositions, mapping could be: 
BQ_BEGIN


I4_Proposition_Set → J4_is_subject_of → I2_Belief → J1_was_premise_for → 
S8_Categorical_hypothesis_building ( IsA I5_Inference_Making IsA 
I1_Argumentation) → J2_conclued_that → I2_Belief → J4_that → I4_Proposition_Set 
BQ_END



I invite you to read our online article : [ 
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49 | https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49 ] 


and to consult the resulting online publication in TEI format: [ 
https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/ | https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/ ] 


Here is the schema that helps me to better understand the organization of the 
CRMinf. 


Hope it will be useful. 
Best, 



Olivier 





[ mailto:olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr | olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr ] 


Ingénieur CNRS 


Laboratoire Archéologie et Territoires - Tours 





UMR 7324 - CITERES - MSH Val de Loire 


BP 60449 


37204 TOURS cedex 03 
02 47 36 15 06 





[ http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat | http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat ] 


[ http://masa.hypotheses.org/ | http://masa.hypotheses.org ] 






De: "Martin Doerr" [ mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr |  ] 
À: "crm-sig" [ mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr |  ] 
Envoyé: Lundi 6 Juillet 2020 20:35:08 
Objet: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption 





On 7/6/2020 7:37 PM, George Bruseker wrote: 

BQ_BEGIN



Dear Thomas, 





As I would read it, S4 Observation is a subclass of I1 Argumentation, therefore 
inheriting all of its properties. This being the case, an observation can lead 
an actor involved in it to come to conclude in a belief (J2). Therefore if the 
situation is that the scientist goes and analyzes the object (instance of S4) 
looking at certain properties, and then comes to some sort of belief, then this 
belief can be documented using J2 concluded that I2 Belief and then continue 
from there. 





Belief adoption, to my understanding, should be used when the belief that one 
is taking up is not founded in one's own observational acts, but is rather 
simply taken over from some external authority. Therefore, you would not need 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modes / Styles of Representing CRM / Ontologies in Diagrams

[Robert Sanderson]

Here are the annotated guidelines that we came up with over about 10 years
of trying different styles across several projects.


   - Colored ovals for resources, with the URI slug within the oval. The
   color is an indication of the sort of resource, but is not the only source
   of the information (re color blindness)

Ovals are important because they give enough space to have text within
them, without taking up too much vertical space. Also enough room to have
multiple lines leading in and out.
Colors are important for most people to see patterns, but need to be
careful of accessibility.


   - Boxes for classes.

But not everything should be boxes, or it looks very square and blocky. The
distinction between class and instance is important, and easy to see with
this.


   - Lozenges for literals. Put strings in ""s inside the lozenge to
   distinguish from numbers, dates, etc.

Lozenge has enough horizontal space, without looking like a stretched class.


   - Black lines with arrows between shapes to establish the connections,
   with labels centered on or above the line.

Obviously.


   - Able to be generated and laid out automatically in a non-terrible way

When you have a lot of diagrams, this becomes important!


We tried having hollow arrow heads for type and filled arrow heads for
other properties, but the distinction is clearer with the class being a box
so we removed it.
We never ran into a need for colored lines or line labels, as the colors
are too subtle to distinguish, so black is better for a11y.

The colors of the ovals should be consistent. We've tried to align across a
few projects now:
  Time:  blue
  Actor: red
  Conceptual: yellow
  Physical: brown
  Place: green
  Data: grey
  Digital: Purple
  Class box:  white


Examples:

https://linked.art/model/base/#names-and-identifiers-for-a-resource
(Scroll down a little past the JSON -- this is generated automatically from
the RDF)
https://linked.art/api/1.0/endpoint/place/#property-diagram  (This is
generated by hand in Omnigraffle)


You can see the evolution of this:

First:  http://openarchives.org/ore/1.0/datamodel#Metadata_about_the_ReM
Evolved to: http://www.openannotation.org/documents/CNI_Dec-OAC_Handout.pdf
Evolved to: http://openannotation.org/spec/beta/
Evolved to: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/#datapositionselector
Evolved to the above.

HTH

Rob



On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 6:49 AM George Bruseker 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> In the context of Issue 457
>
>
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-457-harmonization-of-graphical-documentation-about-crm
>
> We are looking to create style guides for the CRM SIG on how to formulate
> the diagrams that will go in the documentation (e.g. publication of the
> standard, web publications etc.). The goal is to create consistent looking
> documentation that is easily accessible to the CIDOC CRM audience (domain
> specialists, developers, ontological modellers etc.) This would be an
> effort to both create a clean and consistent look for the representations,
> to lower barriers to understanding/adopting CRM, and to more efficiently
> produce this documentation.
>
> Currently we are looking to put together proposals on the possible
> parameters of the style guide, such as which kinds of arrows to use for
> general properties, for IsA property, which kinds of boxes/bubbles to use
> for classes and instances etc.
>
> If you have best practice in mind that should be taken into account, can
> you please share to the list. We will take on board what is shared and make
> a proposal of different possibilities for voting on by the SIG membership.
>
> All best,
>
> George
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Scope Note of CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

The Scope Note of I7 will be corrected.

Best,

Martin

On 7/8/2020 12:46 PM, BOTTINI Thomas wrote:


Dear all,

Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier,

It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that 
every I2 Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was 
not able to deduce from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the 
acceptance of somebody else's conclusion about some state of affairs". 
Stephen's wording is extremely clear.


And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1.

This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2

Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and 
graphical resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our 
further work.


Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf 🙏🏼

——

Thomas Bottini
Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223

*De : *Crm-sig  au nom de Olivier Marlet 


*Date : *mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19
*À : *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
*Objet : *Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

Dear Thomas,


For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations, 
we used the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation 
according to Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the 
CRMinf is directly inspired by this theory.
In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based 
on observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is 
known and acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for 
example); 3/ arguments built from previous conclusions.



1/ For a proposition based on *observation data* or *comparison data*, 
mapping could be:


S15_Observable_Entity → /O11_was_described_by/ →
S6_Data_evaluation (/IsA/ I5_Inference_Making
/IsA/ I1_Argumentation) → /J2_conclued_that/ → I2_Belief →
/J4_that/ → I4_Proposition_Set

I5_Inference_Making → /J3_applies/ → I3_Inference_Logic

2/ For a proposition based on *reference data*, mapping could be:

E31_Document (/IsA/ E73_Information_Object)
→///J7_is_evidence_for/ → I7_Belief_Adoption
(/IsA/ I1_Argumentation) → /J6_adopted/ → I2_Belief → /J4_that/ →
I4_Proposition_Set

3/ For intermediate or final propositions, mapping could be:

I4_Proposition_Set → /J4_is_subject_of/ → I2_Belief →
/J1_was_premise_for/ → S8_Categorical_hypothesis_building
(/IsA/ I5_Inference_Making /IsA/ I1_Argumentation) →
/J2_conclued_that/ → I2_Belief → /J4_that/ → I4_Proposition_Set


I invite you to read our online article : 
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49


and to consult the resulting online publication in TEI format: 
https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/


Here is the schema that helps me to better understand the organization 
of the CRMinf.


Hope it will be useful.
Best,

Olivier

olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr 

Ingénieur CNRS

Laboratoire Archéologie et Territoires - Tours

UMR 7324 - CITERES - MSH Val de Loire

BP 60449

37204 TOURS cedex 03
02 47 36 15 06

http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat

http://masa.hypotheses.org 



*De: *"Martin Doerr" 
*À: *"crm-sig" 
*Envoyé: *Lundi 6 Juillet 2020 20:35:08
*Objet: *Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

On 7/6/2020 7:37 PM, George Bruseker wrote:

Dear Thomas,

As I would read it, S4 Observation is a subclass of I1
Argumentation, therefore inheriting all of its properties. This
being the case, an observation can lead an actor involved in it to
come to conclude in a belief (J2). Therefore if the situation is
that the scientist goes and analyzes the object (instance of S4)
looking at certain properties, and then comes to some sort of
belief, then this belief can be documented using J2 concluded that
I2 Belief and then continue from there.

Belief adoption, to my understanding, should be used when the
belief that one is taking up is not founded in one's own
observational acts, but is rather simply taken over from some
external authority. Therefore, you would not need two events, the
observing, and the belief adopting. Rather you would need one
event, the observation, which directly leads to a belief state.

Without any further context, that is how I imagine it should be
modelled. CRMinfers, do I have it right?

Absolutely! "Belief Adaption" means "adopt another one's belief.

Whatever is found on a physical thing is an observation by human 
senses or other instruments receiving signals, including from chemical 
reactions, x-ray reflection and transmission, tactile etc.


There may be non-trivial*Inference*s subsequent to primary 
observation. For instance, abrasions at amphora handles regarded to 
stem *from ropes* that tied cargo in a ship.


Some instruments contain firmware that cannot be separated from the 
primary signal. We regard then the result a

[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

[Martin Doerr]

On 7/8/2020 1:42 PM, athinak wrote:

Dear all,

I am wondering about the example of I7 Belief Adoption "My adoption of 
the belief that Dragendorff type 29 bowls are from the 1st Century 
AD". Maybe, it should be rephrased in order to express more precisely 
the trust in the source (which is someone else's) and in this sentence 
and it is actually implied.

just a thought,


Yes, examples should also be updated!

Martin



Athina

Στις 2020-07-08 12:46, BOTTINI Thomas έγραψε:

Dear all,

Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier,

It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that
every I2 Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was
not able to deduce from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the
acceptance of somebody else's conclusion about some state of affairs".
Stephen's wording is extremely clear.

And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1.

This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2

Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and
graphical resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our
further work.

Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf 🙏🏼

——

Thomas Bottini
Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223

DE : Crm-sig  au nom de Olivier Marlet

DATE : mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19
À : "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
OBJET : Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

Dear Thomas,

For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations,
we used the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation
according to Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the
CRMinf is directly inspired by this theory.
In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based
on observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is
known and acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for
example); 3/ arguments built from previous conclusions.

1/ For a proposition based on OBSERVATION DATA or COMPARISON DATA,
mapping could be:


S15_Observable_Entity → _O11_was_described_by_ →
S6_Data_evaluation (_IsA_ I5_Inference_Making _IsA_
I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_
→ I4_Proposition_Set

I5_Inference_Making → _J3_applies_ → I3_Inference_Logic


2/ For a proposition based on REFERENCE DATA, mapping could be:


E31_Document (_IsA_ E73_Information_Object) →_
__J7_is_evidence_for_ → I7_Belief_Adoption (_IsA_
I1_Argumentation) → _J6_adopted_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ →
I4_Proposition_Set


3/ For intermediate or final propositions, mapping could be:


I4_Proposition_Set → _J4_is_subject_of_ → I2_Belief →
_J1_was_premise_for_ → S8_Categorical_hypothesis_building (_IsA_
I5_Inference_Making _IsA_ I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_
→ I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → I4_Proposition_Set


I invite you to read our online article :
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49 [1]

and to consult the resulting online publication in TEI format:
https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/ [2]

Here is the schema that helps me to better understand the organization
of the CRMinf.

Hope it will be useful.
Best,

Olivier

olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr

Ingénieur CNRS

Laboratoire Archéologie et Territoires - Tours

UMR 7324 - CITERES - MSH Val de Loire

BP 60449

37204 TOURS cedex 03
02 47 36 15 06

http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat [3]

http://masa.hypotheses.org [4]

-

DE: "Martin Doerr" 
À: "crm-sig" 
ENVOYÉ: Lundi 6 Juillet 2020 20:35:08
OBJET: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

On 7/6/2020 7:37 PM, George Bruseker wrote:


Dear Thomas,

As I would read it, S4 Observation is a subclass of I1
Argumentation, therefore inheriting all of its properties. This
being the case, an observation can lead an actor involved in it to
come to conclude in a belief (J2). Therefore if the situation is
that the scientist goes and analyzes the object (instance of S4)
looking at certain properties, and then comes to some sort of
belief, then this belief can be documented using J2 concluded that
I2 Belief and then continue from there.

Belief adoption, to my understanding, should be used when the belief
that one is taking up is not founded in one's own observational
acts, but is rather simply taken over from some external authority.
Therefore, you would not need two events, the observing, and the
belief adopting. Rather you would need one event, the observation,
which directly leads to a belief state.

Without any further context, that is how I imagine it should be
modelled. CRMinfers, do I have it right?


Absolutely! "Belief Adaption" means "adopt another one's belief.

Whatever is found on a physical thing is an observation by human
senses or other instruments receiving signals, including from chemical
reactions, x-ray reflection and transmission, tactile etc.

There may be non-trivial INFERENCEs subsequent to primary observation.
For instance, abrasions at amphora handles regarded to stem FROM ROPES
that tied cargo in a ship.

Some instrum

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

[van Leusen, P.M.]

Dear all,

Thank you Olivier for your clear explanation of the three 'routes'! Maybe
the following example of belief adoption could be useful: My source
document (Vittucci 1968: 21) has interpreted a particular set of field
observations as evidence for the presence of a roman farmstead; trusting in
her ability to recognise this type of site, I adopt her belief.

Martijn

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 12:53 PM athinak  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I am wondering about the example of I7 Belief Adoption "My adoption of
> the belief that Dragendorff type 29 bowls are from the 1st Century AD".
> Maybe, it should be rephrased in order to express more precisely the
> trust in the source (which is someone else's) and in this sentence and
> it is actually implied.
> just a thought,
>
> Athina
>
> Στις 2020-07-08 12:46, BOTTINI Thomas έγραψε:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier,
> >
> > It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that
> > every I2 Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was
> > not able to deduce from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the
> > acceptance of somebody else's conclusion about some state of affairs".
> > Stephen's wording is extremely clear.
> >
> > And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1.
> >
> > This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2
> >
> > Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and
> > graphical resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our
> > further work.
> >
> > Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf 🙏🏼
> >
> > ——
> >
> > Thomas Bottini
> > Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223
> >
> > DE : Crm-sig  au nom de Olivier Marlet
> > 
> > DATE : mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19
> > À : "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
> > OBJET : Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption
> >
> > Dear Thomas,
> >
> > For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations,
> > we used the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation
> > according to Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the
> > CRMinf is directly inspired by this theory.
> > In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based
> > on observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is
> > known and acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for
> > example); 3/ arguments built from previous conclusions.
> >
> > 1/ For a proposition based on OBSERVATION DATA or COMPARISON DATA,
> > mapping could be:
> >
> >> S15_Observable_Entity → _O11_was_described_by_ →
> >> S6_Data_evaluation (_IsA_ I5_Inference_Making _IsA_
> >> I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_
> >> → I4_Proposition_Set
> >>
> >> I5_Inference_Making → _J3_applies_ → I3_Inference_Logic
> >
> > 2/ For a proposition based on REFERENCE DATA, mapping could be:
> >
> >> E31_Document (_IsA_ E73_Information_Object) →_
> >> __J7_is_evidence_for_ → I7_Belief_Adoption (_IsA_
> >> I1_Argumentation) → _J6_adopted_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ →
> >> I4_Proposition_Set
> >
> > 3/ For intermediate or final propositions, mapping could be:
> >
> >> I4_Proposition_Set → _J4_is_subject_of_ → I2_Belief →
> >> _J1_was_premise_for_ → S8_Categorical_hypothesis_building (_IsA_
> >> I5_Inference_Making _IsA_ I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_
> >> → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → I4_Proposition_Set
> >
> > I invite you to read our online article :
> > https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49 [1]
> >
> > and to consult the resulting online publication in TEI format:
> > https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/ [2]
> >
> > Here is the schema that helps me to better understand the organization
> > of the CRMinf.
> >
> > Hope it will be useful.
> > Best,
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> > olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr
> >
> > Ingénieur CNRS
> >
> > Laboratoire Archéologie et Territoires - Tours
> >
> > UMR 7324 - CITERES - MSH Val de Loire
> >
> > BP 60449
> >
> > 37204 TOURS cedex 03
> > 02 47 36 15 06
> >
> > http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat [3]
> >
> > http://masa.hypotheses.org [4]
> >
> > -
> >
> > DE: "Martin Doerr" 
> > À: "crm-sig" 
> > ENVOYÉ: Lundi 6 Juillet 2020 20:35:08
> > OBJET: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption
> >
> > On 7/6/2020 7:37 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Thomas,
> >>
> >> As I would read it, S4 Observation is a subclass of I1
> >> Argumentation, therefore inheriting all of its properties. This
> >> being the case, an observation can lead an actor involved in it to
> >> come to conclude in a belief (J2). Therefore if the situation is
> >> that the scientist goes and analyzes the object (instance of S4)
> >> looking at certain properties, and then comes to some sort of
> >> belief, then this belief can be documented using J2 concluded that
> >> I2 Belief and then continue from there.
> >>
> >> Belief adoption, to my understanding, should be used when the belief
> >> that one is taking up is not founded in one's o

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

[athinak]

Dear all,

I am wondering about the example of I7 Belief Adoption "My adoption of 
the belief that Dragendorff type 29 bowls are from the 1st Century AD". 
Maybe, it should be rephrased in order to express more precisely the 
trust in the source (which is someone else's) and in this sentence and 
it is actually implied.

just a thought,

Athina

Στις 2020-07-08 12:46, BOTTINI Thomas έγραψε:

Dear all,

Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier,

It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that
every I2 Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was
not able to deduce from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the
acceptance of somebody else's conclusion about some state of affairs".
Stephen's wording is extremely clear.

And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1.

This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2

Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and
graphical resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our
further work.

Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf 🙏🏼

——

Thomas Bottini
Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223

DE : Crm-sig  au nom de Olivier Marlet

DATE : mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19
À : "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
OBJET : Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

Dear Thomas,

For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations,
we used the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation
according to Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the
CRMinf is directly inspired by this theory.
In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based
on observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is
known and acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for
example); 3/ arguments built from previous conclusions.

1/ For a proposition based on OBSERVATION DATA or COMPARISON DATA,
mapping could be:


S15_Observable_Entity → _O11_was_described_by_ →
S6_Data_evaluation (_IsA_ I5_Inference_Making _IsA_
I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_
→ I4_Proposition_Set

I5_Inference_Making → _J3_applies_ → I3_Inference_Logic


2/ For a proposition based on REFERENCE DATA, mapping could be:


E31_Document (_IsA_ E73_Information_Object) →_
__J7_is_evidence_for_ → I7_Belief_Adoption (_IsA_
I1_Argumentation) → _J6_adopted_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ →
I4_Proposition_Set


3/ For intermediate or final propositions, mapping could be:


I4_Proposition_Set → _J4_is_subject_of_ → I2_Belief →
_J1_was_premise_for_ → S8_Categorical_hypothesis_building (_IsA_
I5_Inference_Making _IsA_ I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_
→ I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → I4_Proposition_Set


I invite you to read our online article :
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49 [1]

and to consult the resulting online publication in TEI format:
https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/ [2]

Here is the schema that helps me to better understand the organization
of the CRMinf.

Hope it will be useful.
Best,

Olivier

olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr

Ingénieur CNRS

Laboratoire Archéologie et Territoires - Tours

UMR 7324 - CITERES - MSH Val de Loire

BP 60449

37204 TOURS cedex 03
02 47 36 15 06

http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat [3]

http://masa.hypotheses.org [4]

-

DE: "Martin Doerr" 
À: "crm-sig" 
ENVOYÉ: Lundi 6 Juillet 2020 20:35:08
OBJET: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

On 7/6/2020 7:37 PM, George Bruseker wrote:


Dear Thomas,

As I would read it, S4 Observation is a subclass of I1
Argumentation, therefore inheriting all of its properties. This
being the case, an observation can lead an actor involved in it to
come to conclude in a belief (J2). Therefore if the situation is
that the scientist goes and analyzes the object (instance of S4)
looking at certain properties, and then comes to some sort of
belief, then this belief can be documented using J2 concluded that
I2 Belief and then continue from there.

Belief adoption, to my understanding, should be used when the belief
that one is taking up is not founded in one's own observational
acts, but is rather simply taken over from some external authority.
Therefore, you would not need two events, the observing, and the
belief adopting. Rather you would need one event, the observation,
which directly leads to a belief state.

Without any further context, that is how I imagine it should be
modelled. CRMinfers, do I have it right?


Absolutely! "Belief Adaption" means "adopt another one's belief.

Whatever is found on a physical thing is an observation by human
senses or other instruments receiving signals, including from chemical
reactions, x-ray reflection and transmission, tactile etc.

There may be non-trivial INFERENCEs subsequent to primary observation.
For instance, abrasions at amphora handles regarded to stem FROM ROPES
that tied cargo in a ship.

Some instruments contain firmware that cannot be separated from the
primary signal. We regard then 

[Crm-sig] Modes / Styles of Representing CRM / Ontologies in Diagrams

[George Bruseker]

Dear all,

In the context of Issue 457

http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-457-harmonization-of-graphical-documentation-about-crm

We are looking to create style guides for the CRM SIG on how to formulate
the diagrams that will go in the documentation (e.g. publication of the
standard, web publications etc.). The goal is to create consistent looking
documentation that is easily accessible to the CIDOC CRM audience (domain
specialists, developers, ontological modellers etc.) This would be an
effort to both create a clean and consistent look for the representations,
to lower barriers to understanding/adopting CRM, and to more efficiently
produce this documentation.

Currently we are looking to put together proposals on the possible
parameters of the style guide, such as which kinds of arrows to use for
general properties, for IsA property, which kinds of boxes/bubbles to use
for classes and instances etc.

If you have best practice in mind that should be taken into account, can
you please share to the list. We will take on board what is shared and make
a proposal of different possibilities for voting on by the SIG membership.

All best,

George
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

[BOTTINI Thomas]

Dear all,
Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier,

It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that every I2 
Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was not able to deduce 
from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the acceptance of somebody else's 
conclusion about some state of affairs". Stephen's wording is extremely clear.

And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1.
This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2

Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and graphical 
resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our further work.

Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf 🙏🏼

——
Thomas Bottini
Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223


De : Crm-sig  au nom de Olivier Marlet 

Date : mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19
À : "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
Objet : Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

Dear Thomas,

For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations, we used 
the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation according to 
Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the CRMinf is directly 
inspired by this theory.
In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based on 
observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is known and 
acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for example); 3/ 
arguments built from previous conclusions.


1/ For a proposition based on observation data or comparison data, mapping 
could be:
S15_Observable_Entity → O11_was_described_by → S6_Data_evaluation (IsA 
I5_Inference_Making IsA I1_Argumentation) → J2_conclued_that → I2_Belief → 
J4_that → I4_Proposition_Set
I5_Inference_Making → J3_applies → I3_Inference_Logic

2/ For a proposition based on reference data, mapping could be:
E31_Document (IsA E73_Information_Object) → J7_is_evidence_for → 
I7_Belief_Adoption (IsA I1_Argumentation) → J6_adopted → I2_Belief → J4_that → 
I4_Proposition_Set

3/ For intermediate or final propositions, mapping could be:
I4_Proposition_Set → J4_is_subject_of → I2_Belief → J1_was_premise_for → 
S8_Categorical_hypothesis_building (IsA I5_Inference_Making IsA 
I1_Argumentation) → J2_conclued_that → I2_Belief → J4_that → I4_Proposition_Set

I invite you to read our online article : https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49
and to consult the resulting online publication in TEI format: 
https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/
Here is the schema that helps me to better understand the organization of the 
CRMinf.
Hope it will be useful.
Best,

Olivier

olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr
Ingénieur CNRS
Laboratoire Archéologie et Territoires - Tours

UMR 7324 - CITERES - MSH Val de Loire
BP 60449
37204 TOURS cedex 03
02 47 36 15 06

http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat
http://masa.hypotheses.org


De: "Martin Doerr" 
À: "crm-sig" 
Envoyé: Lundi 6 Juillet 2020 20:35:08
Objet: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

On 7/6/2020 7:37 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
Dear Thomas,

As I would read it, S4 Observation is a subclass of I1 Argumentation, therefore 
inheriting all of its properties. This being the case, an observation can lead 
an actor involved in it to come to conclude in a belief (J2). Therefore if the 
situation is that the scientist goes and analyzes the object (instance of S4) 
looking at certain properties, and then comes to some sort of belief, then this 
belief can be documented using J2 concluded that I2 Belief and then continue 
from there.

Belief adoption, to my understanding, should be used when the belief that one 
is taking up is not founded in one's own observational acts, but is rather 
simply taken over from some external authority. Therefore, you would not need 
two events, the observing, and the belief adopting. Rather you would need one 
event, the observation, which directly leads to a belief state.

Without any further context, that is how I imagine it should be modelled. 
CRMinfers, do I have it right?

Absolutely! "Belief Adaption" means "adopt another one's belief.

Whatever is found on a physical thing is an observation by human senses or 
other instruments receiving signals, including from chemical reactions, x-ray 
reflection and transmission, tactile etc.

There may be non-trivial Inferences subsequent to primary observation. For 
instance, abrasions at amphora handles regarded to stem from ropes that tied 
cargo in a ship.

Some instruments contain firmware that cannot be separated from the primary 
signal. We regard then the result as the primary observation, having in mind 
how the instrument works.

Best,

Martin

Best,

George

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:46 PM BOTTINI Thomas 
mailto:thomas.bott...@cnrs.fr>> wrote:
Dear all,

We try to use CRMinf to model a scientific controversy about the attribution of 
a museum item (the Marie-Antoinette’s travel kit).

We would like to exp