Dear All,
Here the old scope note:
E13 Attribute Assignment
Subclass of: E7 <#_E7_Activity> Activity
Superclass of: E14 <#_E14_Condition_Assessment> Condition Assessment
E15 <#_E15_Identifier_Assignment> Identifier Assignment
E16 <#_E16_Measurement> Measurement
E17 <#_E17_Type_Assignment> Type Assignment
Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making
assertions about properties of an object or any relation between two
items or concepts.
This class allows the documentation of how the respective assignment
came about, and whose opinion it was. All the attributes or properties
assigned in such an action can also be seen as directly attached to the
respective item or concept, possibly as a collection of contradictory
values. All cases of properties in this model that are also described
indirectly through an action are characterised as "short cuts" of this
action. This redundant modelling of two alternative views is preferred
because many implementations may have good reasons to model either the
action or the short cut, and the relation between both alternatives can
be captured by simple rules.
In particular, the class describes the actions of people making
propositions and statements during certain museum procedures, e.g. the
person and date when a condition statement was made, an identifier was
assigned, the museum object was measured, etc. Which kinds of such
assignments and statements need to be documented explicitly in
structures of a schema rather than free text, depends on if this
information should be accessible by structured queries.
=====================================================================
Here my new proposed scope note:
E13 Attribute Assignment
Subclass of: E7 <#_E7_Activity> Activity
Superclass of: E14 <#_E14_Condition_Assessment> Condition Assessment
E15 <#_E15_Identifier_Assignment> Identifier Assignment
<#_E16_Measurement>
E16 <#_E16_Measurement> Measurement
E17 <#_E17_Type_Assignment> Type Assignment
Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making
assertions about properties of an object or any relation between two
items or concepts. The type of the property asserted to hold between two
items or concepts can be described by the property /P2 has type/.
This class allows for the documentation of how the respective
assignment came about, and whose opinion it was. Note that all instances
of properties described in a knowledge base are the opinion of someone.
Per default, they are the opinion of the team maintaining the knowledge
base. This fact must not individually be registered for all instances
of properties provided by the maintaining team, because it would result
in an endless recursion of whose opinion was the description of an
opinion. Therefore the use of E13 Attribute Assignment marks the fact,
that the maintaining team is in general neutral to the validity of the
respective assertion, but registers another ones opinion and how it came
about.
All properties assigned in such an action can also be seen as directly
relating the respective pair of items or concepts. Multiple use of E13
Attribute Assignment may possibly lead to a collection of contradictory
values. All cases of properties in this model that are also described
indirectly through a subclass of E13 Attribute Assignment are
characterised as "short cuts" of a path via this subclass. This
redundant modelling of two alternative views is preferred because many
implementations may have good reasons to model either the action of
assertion or the short cut, and the relation between both alternative
can be captured by simple rules.
In particular, the class describes the actions of people making
propositions and statements during certain museum procedures, e.g. the
person and date when a condition statement was made, an identifier was
assigned, the museum object was measured, etc. Which kinds of such
assignments and statements need to be documented explicitly in
structures of a schema rather than free text, depends on if this
information should be accessible by structured queries.
Best,
Martin
On 2/13/2018 12:48 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear All,
The scope note of E13 must be updated:
A) the property type it refers to should be described by P2 has type
of the E13 instance. Then it is
isomorphic with an RDF reification statement.
B) The epistemology should be described more precisely: It describes
that the maintainers of the knowledge base are not directly
responsible for the validity of the statement.
Best,
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr |
|
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 |
|
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
|
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 |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
