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 cases, such as
spreading rumors on the Web (cf. Friggeri et al. 2014 "Rumour cascades" Fig. 5).
=> The recommendation, in my opinion, should be:*/By default, the maintaining team should establish authorship by adding
an E13 Attribute Assignment to each assertion in the data set. Yet, the
maintaining team should _only_ add an E13 Attribute Assignment to their
own E13 Attribute Assignments in the case of discernible modifications,
updates, or corrections. To avoid comment cascades, such alternative E13
statements should be done in /**/*/parallel(!) not recursively.***/* This recommended procedure
establishes a record history and granular ability to cite data set
contributions by author, yet also avoids a recursive explosion of E13
statements./*
*** Parallel, means E13 statements in the internal record history should never
be about statements in the record history itself. This can easily be maintained
with users being logged in or recorded via IP and timestamp. Working example:
The Wikipedia edit history.
Hope this makes sense.
Best, Max
On 2018-03-24 08:47, Øyvind Eide wrote:
Am 23.03.2018 um 20:26 schrieb Martin Doerr <[email protected]>:
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 <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr
<[email protected]>
Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
To: crm-sig <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment
Dear All,
Here the old scope note:
E13 Attribute Assignment
Subclass of: E7 Activity
Superclass of: E14 Condition Assessment
E15 Identifier Assignment
E16 Measurement
E17 Type Assignment
Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making assertions about
properties of an object or any relation between two items or concepts.
This class allows the documentation of how the respective assignment came about, and
whose opinion it was. All the attributes or properties assigned in such an action can
also be seen as directly attached to the respective item or concept, possibly as a
collection of contradictory values. All cases of properties in this model that are also
described indirectly through an action are characterised as "short cuts" of
this action. This redundant modelling of two alternative views is preferred because many
implementations may have good reasons to model either the action or the short cut, and
the relation between both alternatives can be captured by simple rules.
In particular, the class describes the actions of people making propositions
and statements during certain museum procedures, e.g. the person and date when
a condition statement was made, an identifier was assigned, the museum object
was measured, etc. Which kinds of such assignments and statements need to be
documented explicitly in structures of a schema rather than free text, depends
on if this information should be accessible by structured queries.
=====================================================================
Here my new proposed scope note:
E13 Attribute Assignment
Subclass of: E7 Activity
Superclass of: E14 Condition Assessment
E15 Identifier Assignment
E16 Measurement
E17 Type Assignment
Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making assertions about
properties of an object or any relation between two items or concepts. The type
of the property asserted to hold between two items or concepts can be described
by the property P2 has type.
This class allows for the documentation of how the respective assignment came
about, and whose opinion it was. Note that all instances of properties
described in a knowledge base are the opinion of someone. Per default, they are
the opinion of the team maintaining the knowledge base. This fact must not
individually be registered for all instances of properties provided by the
maintaining team, because it would result in an endless recursion of whose
opinion was the description of an opinion. Therefore the use of E13 Attribute
Assignment marks the fact, that the maintaining team is in general neutral to
the validity of the respective assertion, but registers another ones opinion
and how it came about.
All properties assigned in such an action can also be seen as directly relating the
respective pair of items or concepts. Multiple use of E13 Attribute Assignment may
possibly lead to a collection of contradictory values. All cases of properties in this
model that are also described indirectly through a subclass of E13 Attribute Assignment
are characterised as "short cuts" of a path via this subclass. This redundant
modelling of two alternative views is preferred because many implementations may have
good reasons to model either the action of assertion or the short cut, and the relation
between both alternative can be captured by simple rules.
In particular, the class describes the actions of people making propositions
and statements during certain museum procedures, e.g. the person and date when
a condition statement was made, an identifier was assigned, the museum object
was measured, etc. Which kinds of such assignments and statements need to be
documented explicitly in structures of a schema rather than free text, depends
on if this information should be accessible by structured queries.
Best,
Martin
On 2/13/2018 12:48 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear All,
The scope note of E13 must be updated:
A) the property type it refers to should be described by P2 has type of the E13
instance. Then it is
isomorphic with an RDF reification statement.
B) The epistemology should be described more precisely: It describes that the
maintainers of the knowledge base are not directly responsible for the validity
of the statement.
Best,
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:
[email protected]<mailto:[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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:
[email protected]<mailto:[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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180319/9f5ad147/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
------------------------------
End of Crm-sig Digest, Vol 134, Issue 26
****************************************
_______________________________________________
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
*Dr. Maximilian Schich*
Associate Professor, Arts & Technology
Founding member, The Edith O'Donnell Institute of Art History
*/The University of Texas at Dallas/*
800 West Campbell Road, AT10
Richardson, Texas 75080 – USA
US phone: +1-214-673-3051
EU phone: +49-179-667-8041
www.utdallas.edu/atec/schich/ <http://www.utdallas.edu/atec/schich/>
www.schich.info <http://www.schich.info/>
www.cultsci.net <http://www.cultsci.net/>
Current location: Dallas, Texas
