Dear all, Thank you Olivier for your clear explanation of the three 'routes'! Maybe the following example of belief adoption could be useful: My source document (Vittucci 1968: 21) has interpreted a particular set of field observations as evidence for the presence of a roman farmstead; trusting in her ability to recognise this type of site, I adopt her belief.
Martijn On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 12:53 PM athinak <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > I am wondering about the example of I7 Belief Adoption "My adoption of > the belief that Dragendorff type 29 bowls are from the 1st Century AD". > Maybe, it should be rephrased in order to express more precisely the > trust in the source (which is someone else's) and in this sentence and > it is actually implied. > just a thought, > > Athina > > Στις 2020-07-08 12:46, BOTTINI Thomas έγραψε: > > Dear all, > > > > Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier, > > > > It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that > > every I2 Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was > > not able to deduce from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the > > acceptance of somebody else's conclusion about some state of affairs". > > Stephen's wording is extremely clear. > > > > And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1. > > > > This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2 > > > > Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and > > graphical resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our > > further work. > > > > Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf 🙏🏼 > > > > —— > > > > Thomas Bottini > > Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223 > > > > DE : Crm-sig <[email protected]> au nom de Olivier Marlet > > <[email protected]> > > DATE : mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19 > > À : "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > OBJET : Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption > > > > Dear Thomas, > > > > For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations, > > we used the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation > > according to Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the > > CRMinf is directly inspired by this theory. > > In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based > > on observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is > > known and acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for > > example); 3/ arguments built from previous conclusions. > > > > 1/ For a proposition based on OBSERVATION DATA or COMPARISON DATA, > > mapping could be: > > > >> S15_Observable_Entity → _O11_was_described_by_ → > >> S6_Data_evaluation (_IsA_ I5_Inference_Making _IsA_ > >> I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ > >> → I4_Proposition_Set > >> > >> I5_Inference_Making → _J3_applies_ → I3_Inference_Logic > > > > 2/ For a proposition based on REFERENCE DATA, mapping could be: > > > >> E31_Document (_IsA_ E73_Information_Object) →_ > >> __J7_is_evidence_for_ → I7_Belief_Adoption (_IsA_ > >> I1_Argumentation) → _J6_adopted_ → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → > >> I4_Proposition_Set > > > > 3/ For intermediate or final propositions, mapping could be: > > > >> I4_Proposition_Set → _J4_is_subject_of_ → I2_Belief → > >> _J1_was_premise_for_ → S8_Categorical_hypothesis_building (_IsA_ > >> I5_Inference_Making _IsA_ I1_Argumentation) → _J2_conclued_that_ > >> → I2_Belief → _J4_that_ → I4_Proposition_Set > > > > I invite you to read our online article : > > https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49 [1] > > > > and to consult the resulting online publication in TEI format: > > https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/ [2] > > > > Here is the schema that helps me to better understand the organization > > of the CRMinf. > > > > Hope it will be useful. > > Best, > > > > Olivier > > > > [email protected] > > > > Ingénieur CNRS > > > > Laboratoire Archéologie et Territoires - Tours > > > > UMR 7324 - CITERES - MSH Val de Loire > > > > BP 60449 > > > > 37204 TOURS cedex 03 > > 02 47 36 15 06 > > > > http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat [3] > > > > http://masa.hypotheses.org [4] > > > > ------------------------- > > > > DE: "Martin Doerr" <[email protected]> > > À: "crm-sig" <[email protected]> > > ENVOYÉ: Lundi 6 Juillet 2020 20:35:08 > > OBJET: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption > > > > On 7/6/2020 7:37 PM, George Bruseker wrote: > > > >> Dear Thomas, > >> > >> As I would read it, S4 Observation is a subclass of I1 > >> Argumentation, therefore inheriting all of its properties. This > >> being the case, an observation can lead an actor involved in it to > >> come to conclude in a belief (J2). Therefore if the situation is > >> that the scientist goes and analyzes the object (instance of S4) > >> looking at certain properties, and then comes to some sort of > >> belief, then this belief can be documented using J2 concluded that > >> I2 Belief and then continue from there. > >> > >> Belief adoption, to my understanding, should be used when the belief > >> that one is taking up is not founded in one's own observational > >> acts, but is rather simply taken over from some external authority. > >> Therefore, you would not need two events, the observing, and the > >> belief adopting. Rather you would need one event, the observation, > >> which directly leads to a belief state. > >> > >> Without any further context, that is how I imagine it should be > >> modelled. CRMinfers, do I have it right? > > > > Absolutely! "Belief Adaption" means "adopt another one's belief. > > > > Whatever is found on a physical thing is an observation by human > > senses or other instruments receiving signals, including from chemical > > reactions, x-ray reflection and transmission, tactile etc. > > > > There may be non-trivial INFERENCEs subsequent to primary observation. > > For instance, abrasions at amphora handles regarded to stem FROM ROPES > > that tied cargo in a ship. > > > > Some instruments contain firmware that cannot be separated from the > > primary signal. We regard then the result as the primary observation, > > having in mind how the instrument works. > > > > Best, > > > > Martin > > > >> Best, > >> > >> George > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:46 PM BOTTINI Thomas > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> We try to use CRMinf to model a scientific controversy about the > >>> attribution of a museum item (the Marie-Antoinette’s travel > >>> kit). > >>> > >>> We would like to express the fact that a researcher adopts a > >>> belief (I7 Belief Adoption) after having studied the item at the > >>> museum (S4 Observation). > >>> > >>> Why can’t the range of a J7 (is based on evidence from) be a S4 > >>> Observation (meaning a E7 Activity)? > >>> > >>> In our case, we don’t have any evidence of E73 (Information > >>> Object) type, the observation activity carried out by the > >>> researcher IS the evidence. > >>> > >>> Thank you very much, in advance, > >>> > >>> —— > >>> > >>> Thomas Bottini > >>> Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223 > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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. 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 > > > > Links: > > ------ > > [1] https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/1/49 > > [2] https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/ > > [3] http://citeres.univ-tours.fr/lat > > [4] http://masa.hypotheses.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. Martijn van Leusen Associate Professor, Landscape Archaeology, Groningen Institute of Archaeology Poststraat 6, 9712ER Groningen (Netherlands) / phone +31 50 3636717 Member, Cluster 4 Teaching Board / Chair, Faculty of Arts Advisory Board for Data Management policies Academia page <https://rug.academia.edu/MartijnvanLeusen>
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
