This proposal makes sense to me, and I would strongly support it. Only, the name “is conceptually greater” is not completely appropriate, in my opinion. For example, “Good” is not ‘greater' than “Poor”: it is ‘better’; “Old” is not ‘greater' than “Young” - actually, except for wines, it is worst :)
Maybe “conceptually precedes”, and “conceptually follows” for the reverse? This would reflect the ordinal character of the concerned types in a neutral way. Being a little cryptic would convey the generic value of a pre-defined order to the reader. I am aware that such names are only labels, and in principle can be anything. But since we are christening the new property, a little effort to choose a more significant one could be done. Furthermore, this introduction of ordinality leads me to ask “who said that?”: if some orders may be considered factual, e.g “heavy” is greater than “light", others are possibly not, being the consequence of a subjective appreciation: is “handmade” greater than “industrial”? But this is another story. 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 3 gen 2019, alle ore 06:49, Stephen Stead <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
