Dear All,
Just to add to Wolfgang's remark:
The CRM is in no point a product of a priori intuition, but exclusively
based on empirical study of
database use and interpretation, and a continuous feed back to
systematic updates of the CRM.
More flexible mapping mechanisms and semantic Web technologies also
enable the systematic update
of the databases to new releases. The CRM, as ISO standard, is not
"frozen", but has the regular update
cycle of 5 years, which CRM SIG extensively uses.
How ontological relations can emerge from quantitative measurements is
black magic to me:
All quantitative measurement requires an a priori hypotheses, and
competing hypotheses will reveal better
or worse agreement with reality. So far sciences appear to me to work.
So, what are the initial hypotheses
about such patterns? Or is there again an ontology engineering step
after the measurement?
I agree that the real ontological patterns are often not what expert
intuition would suggest in the first place.
This is our common experience. However once found to be operational,
they must be compatible with
scientific argumentation and expert can confirm. I agree with Maximilian
that data structures must be based on
empirical research, but "measurement"?
The "quantitative" argument is equally puzzling to me. Is quantity now
indicating quality? Aren't we
here confusing the sociology of doing cultural research and the
evolution of knowledge with nature
of the subject matter and the structure and logic of the scholarly
argument? Would anybody reasonably
try to improve the science of physics by studying interaction patterns
between physicists???
All the best,
martin
On 8/1/2016 9:12 πμ, Wolfgang Schmidle wrote:
Dear All,
Let me quote from fellow list member Maximilian Schich's critique of
database models and CRM:
"Over decades, database models, to embody the underlying worldview,
were mostly established using formal logic and a priori expert
intuition. Database curators were subsequently used to collect vast
numbers of specific observations, enabling further traditional
research, while failing to feed back systematic updates into the
underlying database models.
As a consequence, "conceptual reference models" are frozen, sometimes
as ISO standards, and out of sync with the non-intuitive complex
patterns that would emerge from large numbers of specific observations
by quantitative measurement. A systematic data science of art and
culture is now closing the loop using quantification, computation, and
visualization in addition."
http://edge.org/response-detail/26784
Max, let me start by asking where the data underlying visualisations
such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gIhRkCcD4U is supposed to
come from, if not an old-fashioned database? How did you feed the
"non-intuitive complex patterns" emerging in this visualisation back
into the database or somewhere else? And why do you think CRM is out
of snyc with this?
Thanks
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
