Dear Steve You are right.
X < Y is equivalent to "X precedes Y" or "Y follows X” in an ordered set So: “Good (condition) follows Poor (Condition)” “Small precedes Large” etc. No snag, I just messed the concepts. To my excuse, it is not uncommon when the E55 Type of one’s age (decidedly) follows E55 Type = Young. Best, 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 18:00, Stephen Stead <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > > Hi Franco, All > Happy New Year > If we change to Franco's suggested labels (which I think there is a strong > case for) I am confused by the order he suggests as this seems to me to be > the reverse of the original property. So to get the same ordering I would > expect:- > Pxx conceptually follows (conceptually precedes) > Now if that means, to some, the opposite of the original property then we may > have hit a snag with the suggested new property labels. > Rgds > SdS > > Stephen Stead > Tel +44 20 8668 3075 > Mob +44 7802 755 013 > E-mail [email protected] > LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Franco Niccolucci <[email protected]> > Sent: 03 January 2019 08:10 > To: [email protected] > Cc: crm-sig <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] **NEW ISSUE** Ordinal Property for E55 Type > > 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 >
