[Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment
maximilian at schich.info
Sat Mar 24 18:15:05 EET 2018
My "recommendation" was just putting into question an aspect of
Florian's suggestion, and not meant to replace it in a final way.
Regarding your points: The practical cases I am familiar with would use
the E13 on the whole triple, i.e. the link/property-type including a
specific source node and a particular target node. This means either the
triple is stored as a quad, or the triple carries an ID or address, so
one can refer to it. TEI standoff markup would be another practical example.
As an art historian/archaeologist and hopeless class-conceptualist, I do
not believe in trusted sources. Everything comes with a probability. :)
a) Self-description is of course never perfect, yet depends on the
density of information: A signature, as in "Martin performed
Attr.Ass.512" or "A[lbrecht] D[ürer] fecit" is only one form of
(self-)descriptive information, which is as good or bad as anything
else, internal or external. Of course, it is better to see Dürer in
detail or to hear Anne-Sophie Mutter actually play, rather than relying
on a verbal statement of attribution.
b) I don't understand: Any graph-like description of a graph constitutes
a forest of graphs with the original graph, i.e. a disconnected graph
that contains the description of itself. If we generalize that statement
to symbolic representation, you are in essence saying description is
c) I think in most cases "description within a set of information about
its provenance" is the only thing we have. There is no default up the
next source of source. Evolutionary biologists, material scientists, art
historians working on renaissance drawings, and scholars of ancient
manuscripts all rely on hysteresis, i.e. history of the object contained
within the object. There never was a comprehensive DNS for organisms,
manuscript fragments, or paintings, and there never will be. For the
same reason we need to embed provenance in our data sets. Probably we
should even block-chain it in with enough information, so we don't have
to rely on simple signatures.
*/To make my case much more simple and short: "All of Wikipedia includes
the full edit-history". /*This is how it is produced, and how it should
be analyzed. The same standard should apply to any cultural heritage
data set. Any other practice would be like citing monographs without
pagination. This is why E13 is really central, particularly in
multi-authored data sets.
On 2018-03-24 15:01, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear Maximilian,
> This makes sense to me, but I do not agree with your recommendation as
> a general rule.
> There is a fundamental epistemological problem, which has nothing to
> do with quantitative evidence. The latter,
> by the way, cannot detect an endless recursion anyhow, because people
> would break it.
> The ramifications of this breaking are huge, as can be seen by your
> Let us start with a more fundamental construct, a simple
> CRM-compatible "knowledge graph" with one attribute:
> "Martin" has residence "Heraklion".
> Using an E13,
> "Martin" performed "Attr.Ass.512". has type: "has residence"
> assigned: "Heraklion"
> assigned to: "Martin"
> now reading it, I know the knowledge graph wants to make me believe
> who said "has residence", but I do not know, who introduced these
> three more attributes.
> So, I reify the three new attributes with 9 more, and I am still not
> wiser, nor will I be with any other iteration of it.
> If I know that the knowledge graph *was produced by Martin as a
> trusted source as a whole*, I do not need the E13 in it.
> Then, I can add metadata to the whole knowledge graph, e.g., as a
> Named Graph or "context" or on paper etc. , but I am
> still in the same situation: who produced these metadata, are they
> Hence, I conclude three things:
> a) There is no completely self-descriptive information. The trusted
> source ("sender of the message" in Claude Shannon's sense) lies
> outside the information unit. It must always be the default. In order
> to characterize the default, we need semantics different from E13.
> b) It makes no sense to describe the default in the graph itself.
> c) Any description within a set of information about its provenance
> pushes the level where the default applies up to the next source of
> source. Hence, if a team decides to register actions of their members,
> the team as a whole pushes the default up to the trust in the
> registration, rather than in the primarily registered. I see all you
> examples as practices of this kind. There may be many reasons to do
> this, but in other cases also not to do it.
> Such a rule cannot replace understanding the basic epistemology, which
> is always the same.
> Does that make sense:-)?
> All the best,
> On 3/24/2018 12:10 PM, Maximilian Schich wrote:
>> Dear Florian and all,
>> Based on quantitative evidence, I'd object to the following to part of your suggestion:
>> "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."
>> => This would only be correct if the maintaining team would add additional E13 Attribute Assignments to their own E13 statements. Otherwise,*/in practice, the data would (a) more or less double, plus (b) a
>> non-exploding truncated tail of additional E13 correction statements/**/, where the maintaining team corrects itself./*
>> => Example for (a): In large data sets such as the "Census of Antique Works of Art and Architecture" the "record history" approximately doubles the data set as a whole. Note: The Census "record history" is the place where the maintaining team records their own E13-like/attribute //assertions /(aka/assertions of database record authorship/). It is important to point out that the record history, where an internal database curator implicitly claims authorship for say an artist attribution in the Census, is conceptually in no way different from an external author providing a differing opinion (both usually have PhDs in art history). Ergo there are two default cases: (1) The internal database curator claims authorship for a*/direct assertion/* via a single E13 Attribute assignment in the record history; (2) The internal database curator claims authorship for a*/cited assertion/* via an E13 attribute assignment in the record history on top of the*/original assertion/* that connects the stated opinion to its external source via another E13 attribute assignment.
>> => Example for (b): In large data sets where the multiplicity of opinion is recorded, the number of competing assertions including both record history and external opinions, is usually characterized by a tailed frequency distribution*. This usually means in practice that the data set stays in the same order of magnitude relative to the case where the maintaining team decides to follow one of the alternative assertions.**
>> * The frequency distributions would look similar to Schich 2010 "Revealing Matrices" Fig. 14-8. Indeed, my pre-publication version of this figure had a column for the record history, not included in the article, as the networks were too large for the preceding figure.
>> ** Yes, we should expect some "assertion cascades" to be exceedingly large, but we can also expect the median cascade length being very short, between 1 and 2 in cultural heritage databases based on personal experience, and still short in very large scale cases, such as spreading rumors on the Web (cf. Friggeri et al. 2014 "Rumour cascades" Fig. 5).
>> => The recommendation, in my opinion, should be:*/By default, the maintaining team should establish authorship by
>> adding an E13 Attribute Assignment to each assertion in the data set.
>> Yet, the maintaining team should _only_ add an E13 Attribute
>> Assignment to their own E13 Attribute Assignments in the case of
>> discernible modifications, updates, or corrections. To avoid comment
>> cascades, such alternative E13 statements should be done in /**/*/parallel(!) not recursively.***/* This recommended procedure
>> establishes a record history and granular ability to cite data set
>> contributions by author, yet also avoids a recursive explosion of E13
>> *** Parallel, means E13 statements in the internal record history should never be about statements in the record history itself. This can easily be maintained with users being logged in or recorded via IP and timestamp. Working example: The Wikipedia edit history.
>> Hope this makes sense.
>> Best, Max
> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
> | Email:martin at 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 |
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
*Dr. Maximilian Schich*
Associate Professor, Arts & Technology
Founding member, The Edith O'Donnell Institute of Art History
*/The University of Texas at Dallas/*
800 West Campbell Road, AT10
Richardson, Texas 75080 â€“ USA
US phone: +1-214-673-3051
EU phone: +49-179-667-8041
Current location: Dallas, Texas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig