Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Maximilian,

I had been a bit shorthand.

I referred to a knowledge graph theoretically, as CRM instance, without 
a quad feature, or looking at it as being a Named Graph. Of course 
current systems have these features built in.


The reason being, that only separating the Graph from the data about the 
Graph, be it quad or Named Graph or on paper, we can understand the 
logical problem.


If we look at the "metagraph" that is about a graph, it is again a 
simple graph. It does not have a provenance. Its provenance
could be another graph about this graph, and we are still at the same 
point.


This means, that ultimately, we have to rely on curators of information, 
that mediate trust in it. By "trusted source",
I do not mean a logical "TRUE", I mean that someone gives me information 
he himself trusts because of further knowledge,
and I trust that it is his best knowledge, regardless whether it turns 
out to be wrong later.


We may talk about degrees of trust, and plausibility, but that are only 
variant of trust. Trust is not a statistical probability.
If I get an image of a Duerer, I have no bl.. idea if it is a fake or 
not.  I would not assume that it is a fake, if I can trace its 
provenance to a museum. I would check the Website, if it suspicious or not.


The epistemological chain will go back to primary evidence. I assume 
that the museum knows how to connect the image to the original paper, 
that the paper has a credible chain of owners back to Duerer, or has 
been examined by analytical methods to be genuine.  Arguing about my 
image, I imply all this good practice was applied. Even if this is all 
described in the document, without the connection to the human curator 
there is no knowledge in it.


So, point b) means, the solution to the descriptive chain is that at the 
end there is a trusted source, i.e. a source I have no good reason to 
question, which may make errors, but follow a good practice of knowledge 
creation.


Your point c) below looks only at one level of metadata. If, e.g., I 
have an old physical book from 15th century in a library, I would rely 
on the author information and date in it. But I I would simultaneously 
rely on the physical book exhibiting features of that are compatible 
with the age and I would rely on the library curators not having 
smuggled in fakes over time. I would compare with other copies etc. Even 
if a fake is detected, I would rely on this human/material provenance to 
hypothesize how a fake could have come in. It will still be a form of 
(less;-))trusted source.


So, my point is, the trusted source can be directly responsible for the 
content. It may only be responsible for the metadata, or the 
metametadata, etc.


Each indirection is expected to rely on good practice and hence provide 
trust in the level below, i.e.,
the metametadescription about the metadescription, the metadescription 
about the description. Each level should describe where its confidence 
comes from.


At the end, there is always a (living) human being connecting data with 
the real world. In our information systems, we must keep that curation 
chain. No other information can save us from fake news, once they can be 
spread and multiplied without limits.


OR not?:-)

Best,

martin




On 3/24/2018 6:15 PM, Maximilian Schich wrote:


Dear Martin,

My "recommendation" was just putting into question an aspect of 
Florian's suggestion, and not meant to replace it in a final way.


Regarding your points: The practical cases I am familiar with would 
use the E13 on the whole triple, i.e. the link/property-type including 
a specific source node and a particular target node. This means either 
the triple is stored as a quad, or the triple carries an ID or 
address, so one can refer to it. TEI standoff markup would be another 
practical example.


As an art historian/archaeologist and hopeless class-conceptualist, I 
do not believe in trusted sources. Everything comes with a probability. :)


a) Self-description is of course never perfect, yet depends on the 
density of information: A signature, as in "Martin performed 
Attr.Ass.512" or "A[lbrecht] D[ürer] fecit" is only one form of 
(self-)descriptive information, which is as good or bad as anything 
else, internal or external. Of course, it is better to see Dürer in 
detail or to hear Anne-Sophie Mutter actually play, rather than 
relying on a verbal statement of attribution.


b) I don't understand: Any graph-like description of a graph 
constitutes a forest of graphs with the original graph, i.e. a 
disconnected graph that contains the description of itself. If we 
generalize that statement to symbolic representation, you are in 
essence saying description is impossible.


c) I think in most cases "description within a set of information 
about its provenance" is the only thing we have. There is no default 
up the next source of source. Evolutionary biologists, material 
scientists, art historians working on renaissance 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Maximilian Schich]

Dear Martin,

My "recommendation" was just putting into question an aspect of 
Florian's suggestion, and not meant to replace it in a final way.


Regarding your points: The practical cases I am familiar with would use 
the E13 on the whole triple, i.e. the link/property-type including a 
specific source node and a particular target node. This means either the 
triple is stored as a quad, or the triple carries an ID or address, so 
one can refer to it. TEI standoff markup would be another practical example.


As an art historian/archaeologist and hopeless class-conceptualist, I do 
not believe in trusted sources. Everything comes with a probability. :)


a) Self-description is of course never perfect, yet depends on the 
density of information: A signature, as in "Martin performed 
Attr.Ass.512" or "A[lbrecht] D[ürer] fecit" is only one form of 
(self-)descriptive information, which is as good or bad as anything 
else, internal or external. Of course, it is better to see Dürer in 
detail or to hear Anne-Sophie Mutter actually play, rather than relying 
on a verbal statement of attribution.


b) I don't understand: Any graph-like description of a graph constitutes 
a forest of graphs with the original graph, i.e. a disconnected graph 
that contains the description of itself. If we generalize that statement 
to symbolic representation, you are in essence saying description is 
impossible.


c) I think in most cases "description within a set of information about 
its provenance" is the only thing we have. There is no default up the 
next source of source. Evolutionary biologists, material scientists, art 
historians working on renaissance drawings, and scholars of ancient 
manuscripts all rely on hysteresis, i.e. history of the object contained 
within the object. There never was a comprehensive DNS for organisms, 
manuscript fragments, or paintings, and there never will be. For the 
same reason we need to embed provenance in our data sets. Probably we 
should even block-chain it in with enough information, so we don't have 
to rely on simple signatures.


*/To make my case much more simple and short: "All of Wikipedia includes 
the full edit-history". /*This is how it is produced, and how it should 
be analyzed. The same standard should apply to any cultural heritage 
data set. Any other practice would be like citing monographs without 
pagination. This is why E13 is really central, particularly in 
multi-authored data sets.



On 2018-03-24 15:01, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear Maximilian,

This makes sense to me, but I do not agree with your recommendation as 
a general rule.


There is a fundamental epistemological problem, which has nothing to 
do with quantitative evidence. The latter,
by the way, cannot detect an endless recursion anyhow, because people 
would break it.


The ramifications of this breaking are huge, as can be seen by your 
answer.


Let us start with a more fundamental construct, a simple 
CRM-compatible "knowledge graph" with one attribute:


"Martin" has residence "Heraklion".

Using an E13,
"Martin" performed "Attr.Ass.512". has type: "has residence"
assigned: "Heraklion"
assigned to: "Martin"
now reading it, I know the knowledge graph wants to make me believe 
who said "has residence", but I do not know, who introduced these 
three more attributes.
So, I reify the three new attributes with 9 more, and I am still not 
wiser, nor will I be with any other iteration of it.


If I know that the knowledge graph *was produced by Martin as a 
trusted source as a whole*, I do not need the E13 in it.


Then, I can add metadata to the whole knowledge graph, e.g., as a 
Named Graph or "context" or on paper etc. , but I am
still in the same situation: who produced these metadata, are they 
trusted?


Hence, I conclude three things:

a) There is no completely self-descriptive information. The trusted 
source ("sender of the message" in Claude Shannon's sense) lies 
outside the information unit. It must always be the default. In order 
to characterize the default, we need semantics  different from E13.


b) It makes no sense to describe the default in the graph itself.

c) Any description within a set of information about its provenance 
pushes the level where the default applies up to the next source of 
source. Hence, if a team decides to register actions of their members, 
the team as a whole pushes the default up to the trust in the 
registration, rather than in the primarily registered. I see all you 
examples as practices of this kind. There may be many reasons to do 
this, but in other cases also not to do it.


Such a rule cannot replace understanding the basic epistemology, which 
is always the same.


Does that make sense:-)?

All the best,

Martin



On 3/24/2018 12:10 PM, Maximilian Schich wrote:


Dear Florian and all,

Based on quantitative evidence, I'd object to the following to part of your 
suggestion:

"This fact must not individually be registered for all instances of properties 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Maximilian,

This makes sense to me, but I do not agree with your recommendation as a 
general rule.


There is a fundamental epistemological problem, which has nothing to do 
with quantitative evidence. The latter,
by the way, cannot detect an endless recursion anyhow, because people 
would break it.


The ramifications of this breaking are huge, as can be seen by your answer.

Let us start with a more fundamental construct, a simple CRM-compatible 
"knowledge graph" with one attribute:


"Martin" has residence "Heraklion".

Using an E13,
"Martin" performed "Attr.Ass.512". has type: "has residence"
assigned: "Heraklion"
assigned to: "Martin"
now reading it, I know the knowledge graph wants to make me believe who 
said "has residence", but I do not know, who introduced these three more 
attributes.
So, I reify the three new attributes with 9 more, and I am still not 
wiser, nor will I be with any other iteration of it.


If I know that the knowledge graph *was produced by Martin as a trusted 
source as a whole*, I do not need the E13 in it.


Then, I can add metadata to the whole knowledge graph, e.g., as a Named 
Graph or "context" or on paper etc. , but I am

still in the same situation: who produced these metadata, are they trusted?

Hence, I conclude three things:

a) There is no completely self-descriptive information. The trusted 
source ("sender of the message" in Claude Shannon's sense) lies outside 
the information unit. It must always be the default. In order to 
characterize the default, we need semantics  different from E13.


b) It makes no sense to describe the default in the graph itself.

c) Any description within a set of information about its provenance 
pushes the level where the default applies up to the next source of 
source. Hence, if a team decides to register actions of their members, 
the team as a whole pushes the default up to the trust in the 
registration, rather than in the primarily registered. I see all you 
examples as practices of this kind. There may be many reasons to do 
this, but in other cases also not to do it.


Such a rule cannot replace understanding the basic epistemology, which 
is always the same.


Does that make sense:-)?

All the best,

Martin



On 3/24/2018 12:10 PM, Maximilian Schich wrote:


Dear Florian and all,

Based on quantitative evidence, I'd object to the following to part of your 
suggestion:

"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."

=> This would only be correct if the maintaining team would add additional E13 Attribute Assignments to their own E13 statements. Otherwise,*/in practice, the data would (a) more or less double, plus (b) a 
non-exploding truncated tail of additional E13 correction statements/**/, where the maintaining team corrects itself./*


=> Example for (a): In large data sets such as the "Census of Antique Works of Art and 
Architecture" the "record history" approximately doubles the data set as a whole. Note: The 
Census "record history" is the place where the maintaining team records their own E13-like/attribute 
//assertions /(aka/assertions of database record authorship/). It is important to point out that the record 
history, where an internal database curator implicitly claims authorship for say an artist attribution in the 
Census, is conceptually in no way different from an external author providing a differing opinion (both usually 
have PhDs in art history). Ergo there are two default cases: (1) The internal database curator claims authorship 
for a*/direct assertion/*  via a single E13 Attribute assignment in the record history; (2) The internal 
database curator claims authorship for a*/cited assertion/*  via an E13 attribute assignment in the record 
history on top of the*/original assertion/*  that connects the stated opinion to its external source via another 
E13 attribute assignment.

=> Example for (b): In large data sets where the multiplicity of opinion is 
recorded, the number of competing assertions including both record history and 
external opinions, is usually characterized by a tailed frequency distribution*. 
This usually means in practice that the data set stays in the same order of 
magnitude relative to the case where the maintaining team decides to follow one of 
the alternative assertions.**
* The frequency distributions would look similar to Schich 2010 "Revealing 
Matrices" Fig. 14-8. Indeed, my pre-publication version of this figure had a column 
for the record history, not included in the article, as the networks were too large for 
the preceding figure.
** Yes, we should expect some "assertion cascades" to be exceedingly large, but we can 
also expect the median cascade length being very short, between 1 and 2 in cultural heritage 
databases based on personal experience, and still short in very large scale 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Martin Doerr]

Perfect!

Martin

On 3/24/2018 9:47 AM, Øyvind Eide wrote:

Am 23.03.2018 um 20:26 schrieb Martin Doerr :

Dear Florian,

This is what I meant by "in general".

I propose to reformulate:

Therefore the use of E13 Attribute Assignment marks the fact, that the 
maintaining team is either neutral to the validity of the respective assertion 
or has another opinion about it, but registers another ones opinion and how it 
came about.

Therefore the use of E13 Attribute Assignment makes the point that the 
maintaining team is either neutral to the validity of the respective assertion 
or has another opinion about it. What they register is somebody else's opinion 
and how it came about.

Ciao,

Øyvind


Best,

Martin

On 3/20/2018 11:04 AM, Florian Kräutli wrote:

Dear Martin,

many thanks for this! I would change, or remove, this part

"[...] marks the fact, that the maintaining team is in general neutral to 
the validity of the respective assertion [...]"

We see a good use-case for E13 in recording information that is wrong, or 
information that once used to be thought correct. For example, an artefact that 
was once thought to have been produced by Person A, but later it emerged that 
it was made by Person B. In such cases, we want to record the first piece of 
information using E13, along with its source, to indicate that we are aware of 
it and to allow people to find it even when they search based on outdated 
knowledge. We as the maintaining team are therefore not neutral to the validity 
of the assertion.

All best,

Florian


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
To: crm-sig 
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 man

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Maximilian Schich]

was once thought to have been produced by Person A, but later it emerged that 
it was made by Person B. In such cases, we want to record the first piece of 
information using E13, along with its source, to indicate that we are aware of 
it and to allow people to find it even when they search based on outdated 
knowledge. We as the maintaining team are therefore not neutral to the validity 
of the assertion.

All best,

Florian


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
To: crm-sig 
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

--

-

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Øyvind Eide]

> Am 23.03.2018 um 20:26 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear Florian,
> 
> This is what I meant by "in general".
> 
> I propose to reformulate:
> 
> Therefore the use of E13 Attribute Assignment marks the fact, that the 
> maintaining team is either neutral to the validity of the respective 
> assertion or has another opinion about it, but registers another ones opinion 
> and how it came about.

Therefore the use of E13 Attribute Assignment makes the point that the 
maintaining team is either neutral to the validity of the respective assertion 
or has another opinion about it. What they register is somebody else's opinion 
and how it came about.

Ciao,

Øyvind

> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 3/20/2018 11:04 AM, Florian Kräutli wrote:
>> Dear Martin,
>> 
>> many thanks for this! I would change, or remove, this part
>> 
>>  "[...] marks the fact, that the maintaining team is in general neutral 
>> to the validity of the respective assertion [...]"
>> 
>> We see a good use-case for E13 in recording information that is wrong, or 
>> information that once used to be thought correct. For example, an artefact 
>> that was once thought to have been produced by Person A, but later it 
>> emerged that it was made by Person B. In such cases, we want to record the 
>> first piece of information using E13, along with its source, to indicate 
>> that we are aware of it and to allow people to find it even when they search 
>> based on outdated knowledge. We as the maintaining team are therefore not 
>> neutral to the validity of the assertion.
>> 
>> All best,
>> 
>> Florian
>> 
>>> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 
>>> 
>>> Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
>>> To: crm-sig 
>>> 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 knowledg

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Florian,

This is what I meant by "in general".

I propose to reformulate:

Therefore the use of E13 Attribute Assignment marks the fact, that the 
maintaining team is either neutral to the validity of the respective assertion 
or has another opinion about it, but registers another ones opinion and how it 
came about.

Best,

Martin

On 3/20/2018 11:04 AM, Florian Kräutli wrote:

Dear Martin,

many thanks for this! I would change, or remove, this part

"[...] marks the fact, that the maintaining team is in general neutral to 
the validity of the respective assertion [...]"

We see a good use-case for E13 in recording information that is wrong, or 
information that once used to be thought correct. For example, an artefact that 
was once thought to have been produced by Person A, but later it emerged that 
it was made by Person B. In such cases, we want to record the first piece of 
information using E13, along with its source, to indicate that we are aware of 
it and to allow people to find it even when they search based on outdated 
knowledge. We as the maintaining team are therefore not neutral to the validity 
of the assertion.

All best,

Florian


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
To: crm-sig 
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 id

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear Martin,

many thanks for this! I would change, or remove, this part

"[...] marks the fact, that the maintaining team is in general neutral 
to the validity of the respective assertion [...]"

We see a good use-case for E13 in recording information that is wrong, or 
information that once used to be thought correct. For example, an artefact that 
was once thought to have been produced by Person A, but later it emerged that 
it was made by Person B. In such cases, we want to record the first piece of 
information using E13, along with its source, to indicate that we are aware of 
it and to allow people to find it even when they search based on outdated 
knowledge. We as the maintaining team are therefore not neutral to the validity 
of the assertion.

All best,

Florian

> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 
> 
> Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
> To: crm-sig 
> 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Martin Doerr]

On 3/19/2018 7:34 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Thank you Martin for the addition to the scope note regarding P2.

Just to clarify, the easiest way to refer to a relationship defined by 
the CRM is via the URI of that relationship.


Thus I assume it is okay to do this:

_:aa a E13_Attribute_Assignment ;

  P2_has_type  ;

  P141_assigned  ;

P140_assigned_attribute_to _:production_of_painting .

Asserting that the production of the painting activity was carried out 
by Rembrandt.



Yes :-)!

Martin


Rob

*From: *Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr 

*Date: *Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
*To: *crm-sig 
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

Dear All,

Here the old scope note:


  E13 Attribute Assignment

Subclass of: E7 <#_E7_Activity> Activity

Superclass of: E14 <#_E14_Condition_Assessment> Condition Assessment

E15 <#_E15_Identifier_Assignment> Identifier Assignment

E16 <#_E16_Measurement> Measurement

E17 <#_E17_Type_Assignment> 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 <#_E7_Activity> Activity

Superclass of: E14 <#_E14_Condition_Assessment> Condition Assessment

E15 <#_E15_Identifier_Assignment> Identifier Assignment
<#_E16_Measurement>

E16 <#_E16_Measurement> Measurement

E17 <#_E17_Type_Assignment> 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,

  

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Robert Sanderson]

Thank you Martin for the addition to the scope note regarding P2.

Just to clarify, the easiest way to refer to a relationship defined by the CRM 
is via the URI of that relationship.

Thus I assume it is okay to do this:

_:aa a E13_Attribute_Assignment ;
  P2_has_type  ;
  P141_assigned  ;
  P140_assigned_attribute_to _:production_of_painting .


Asserting that the production of the painting activity was carried out by 
Rembrandt.

Rob


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
To: crm-sig 
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 stateme

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

Here the old scope note:


 E13 Attribute Assignment

Subclass of: E7 <#_E7_Activity> Activity

Superclass of: E14 <#_E14_Condition_Assessment> Condition Assessment

E15 <#_E15_Identifier_Assignment> Identifier Assignment

E16 <#_E16_Measurement> Measurement

E17 <#_E17_Type_Assignment> 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 <#_E7_Activity> Activity

Superclass of: E14 <#_E14_Condition_Assessment> Condition Assessment

E15 <#_E15_Identifier_Assignment> Identifier Assignment
<#_E16_Measurement>

E16 <#_E16_Measurement> Measurement

E17 <#_E17_Type_Assignment> 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  |
  |
Center for Cultural Informatics   

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Martin Doerr]

On 2/13/2018 7:58 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Dear Martin, all,

If the scope note of E13 will assert that P2 should reference 
(somehow) the property, how will this interact with subclasses of E13?


Or will those subclasses be deprecated in favor of this more 
consistent, broader pattern?


The 4 subclasses are all associated with shortcuts that fix the implied 
the property. There is no reason to deprecate them, because they 
elaborate additional features. We could think of "default types" for 
these subclasses, and/or of a subproperty of P2 to denote the reified 
property type in E13.


Best,

Martin


Thanks!

Rob

*From: *Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr 

*Date: *Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 2:48 AM
*To: *crm-sig 
*Subject: *[Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

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 
  |
  |
    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 |
 |
   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   |
--

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Robert Sanderson]

Dear Martin, all,

If the scope note of E13 will assert that P2 should reference (somehow) the 
property, how will this interact with subclasses of E13?
Or will those subclasses be deprecated in favor of this more consistent, 
broader pattern?

Thanks!

Rob

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 2:48 AM
To: crm-sig 
Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment


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 |

 |

   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   |

--