[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Scope Note of CRMinf -> Belief Adoption

Wed, 08 Jul 2020 04:40:54 -0700 

Dear All,

The Scope Note of I7 will be corrected.

Best,

Martin

On 7/8/2020 12:46 PM, BOTTINI Thomas wrote:


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
and to consult the resulting online publication in TEI format: https://www.unicaen.fr/puc/rigny/
Here is the schema that helps me to better understand the organization of the CRMinf. 

Hope it will be useful.
Best,

Olivier

[email protected] <mailto:[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

http://masa.hypotheses.org <http://masa.hypotheses.org/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*De: *"Martin Doerr" <[email protected]>
*Ă€: *"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*Inference*s 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
        http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



    _______________________________________________

    Crm-sig mailing list

    [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to