One take-home from large-scale data-integration & data science is that
even the strongest assumed 1-to-many relationship in reality is
quasi-1-to-many due to differences in opinion (your tree vs. my tree),
differences in construction of strong-tree classification systems (e.g.
material/construction-method vs. construction-method/material in
architecture), and differences in data preservation (cf. the integration
of several strong-tree phylogenies based on different knowledge of the
fossil record). As a consequence it would make good sense to model
part-of relationships by default to allow for many-to-many at least as
an exception, even if the ideal is 1-to-many for one reason or another.
Regarding this issue of "part-of as many-to-many", there is a crucial
difference between more controlled data collections for "data reasoning"
and a more realistic "data archaeology" that acknowledges the existing
multiplicity of opinion. In the case of "data reasoning" many-to-many
may be a computational hurdle. Yet in the case of "data archaeology"
forced 1-to-many relationships are evil, as they induce an artificial
discreteness in the data, very similar to the artificial yet often
conceptually enforced discreteness of races, gender, etc. In this sense
an artificial restriction of part-of semantics to 1-to-many
relationships may be a potential source of severe systematic bias that
needs to be avoided under all cost.
Consequently, there should be an emphasis on "general parts can be
shared by more than one whole", particularly when facing heterogeneous
sources of data. At the same time the audience should be provided with
an explicit explanation why "non-cyclic, wherever it applies" could be a
desire, while always accompanied by a caveat that "wherever it applies"
may be true in considerable less cases than intuition would suggest.
Best, Max
*Dr. Maximilian Schich*
Associate Professor, The University of Texas at Dallas, ATEC
<http://www.utdallas.edu/atec/> & EODIAH
<https://www.utdallas.edu/arthistory/>
800 W Campbell Rd AT10, Richardson TX 75080
Appointments via email
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=[Appointment]>
www.schich.info <http://www.schich.info/>
On 2019-10-13 04:26, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear Christian-Emil,
This is good. There is also another concern that in general parts can
be shared by more than one whole. I would, nevertheless, add the
constraint that part-of semantics mean also non-cyclic, wherever it
applies. Could you check that?
Best,
Martin
On 10/13/2019 8:42 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
Dear all,
I work my way through all the open issues. This issue origins from an
observation by Robert Sanderson that P9 cannot hav ethe cardinality 1
to many and at the same time be transitive. This is correct and will
apply to all transitive properties. A transitive property will always
be many to many.
Have to be adjusted:
P5, P9, P10, P73
Already many to many
P69 ok,P86 ok, P89 ok, P114 ok, P115 ok, P116 ok, P117 ok, P120 ok,
P127 ok, P139 ok, P148 ok, P150 ok, P165 ok
This is just editorial changes and need no discussion.
Best,
Christian-Emil
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
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
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email:[email protected]
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
