During the discussions at the CRM-SIG meeting during November 2018 in Berlin
the problem of dealing with instances E55 Type that have ordinal
relationships with other instances of E55 Type came up. There were a number
of use cases explored including:-

*       Condition report status values like Excellent, Good, Average, Poor,
Critical where being able to query for all items that were below "Average"
or "Good" and above would be useful.
*       Map scales expressed as types
*       Fire Hazard Ratings

This lead Robert and I to suggest that a new property be created that
allowed this kind of ordinal relationship to be expressed. The
quantification allows for parallel hierarchies, e.g. if someone has a type
that is "slightly better than average but not quite good", then they could
align that with an existing hierarchy of Good > Average by saying that it is
greater than "Average" and that "Good" is greater than both it and Average.




Pxx is conceptually greater than (is conceptually less than)


Domain: E55 Type

Range: E55 Type

Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n)



This property allows instances of E55 Type to be declared as having an order
relative to other instances of E55 Type, without necessarily having a
specific value associated with either instance.  This allows, for example,
for an E55 Type instance representing the concept of "good" to be greater
than the E55 Type instance representing the concept of "average". This
property is transitive, and thus if "average" is greater than "poor", then
"good" is also greater than "poor". In the domain of statistics, types that
participate in this kind of relationship are called "Ordinal Variables"; as
opposed to those without order which are called "Nominal Variables". This
property allows for queries that select based on the relative position of
participating E55 Types.



Examples:

  * Good (E55) is conceptually greater than Average (E55)

  * Map Scale 1:10000 (E55) is conceptually greater than Map Scale 1:20000
(E55)

  * Fire Hazard Rating 4 (E55) is conceptually greater than Fire Hazard
Rating 3 (E55)



Comments Welcome

SdS & Robert S



Reply via email to