[Crm-sig] Recording absence

van Leusen, P.M. p.m.van.leusen at rug.nl
Wed Dec 11 19:13:24 EET 2019


Dear Martin,

the following has unfortunately languished in my 'drafts' folder for a
while, but is hopefully still of interest:

Re 'database thinking': in many cases the fact that nothing was collected
is not being positively recorded - you have to infer it from the absence of
finds data in the database. This seems very poor practice to me. In my own
surveys I produce actual empty curated holdings, in the form of a ticket
stating that a particular survey pass resulted in no finds (using the
'empty set' symbol). This is 'curated' in the sense that it goes into
storage along with the finds bags that do contain finds.
Re seeking but not finding: in an archaeological survey we are not seeking
things that we know must be there, like a lost key; it's more like making a
measurement: how many of several classes of objects (the 'things expected
at the start of the investigation') do we encounter in a given piece of
land? So finding '0' of anything is a valid result, but instead of
recording zero finds for all possible finds categories, we just record no
finds, period.

Martijn

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:03 PM Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr> wrote:

> Dear Martijn, All,
>
> As you state, an empty collection does not really work, because nothing is
> curated or created. This would be "Relational Database" thinking, where you
> fill in slots.
>
> The interesting thing is, to be clear about WHAT is negated. What is a "no
> archaeological finds at all" ?
> Obviously, it needs a specification of WHAT was sought or expected
> starting the investigation. This appears to be E55 Types. So, we have a
> property "O19
> <#m_-6633394639677410782_m_8077312891696986019__O19_has_found>* has found
> object of type (was type of object found by)", and its negative. This is
> not dramatic, to define for all respective properties the "categorical"
> equivalent, and the negative, once they are simple deductions, and do not
> proliferate.
>
> But interesting is also the activity of seeking, but not finding. So, a
> survey is seeking, results in n encounters. Here, we have  "no encounter
> event",  no event linking to "object of type". This is more complex. The
> "no" is about the event....
>
> Comments?
>
> martin
>
> On 11/5/2019 5:36 PM, van Leusen, P.M. wrote:
>
> Dear Athanasios,
>
> this same issue came up during discussion of the ontology of
> archaeological field surveying, where we wish to (and in some cases, have
> in fact) recorded the absence of surface finds from a specific piece of
> investigated land. A typical situation would be, that a survey team has
> 'walked' a field with a particular observation intensity, say 20% (so 20%
> of the field's surface has actually been inspected), and has made no
> archaeological finds at all. This results in an 'empty' collection (0
> finds), which is a valid outcome just like 1, 10 or a 1000 finds would be.
> It was suggested by George Bruseker to model such survey collections as
> Curated Holdings, but that only works as long as there is something
> physical to curate - so it does not work for 'empty' collections.
> So, what solutions might be possible, analogous to the options that you've
> presented here? Either we allow Curated Holdings with zero members, or we
> introduce negative properties.....
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:03 PM Athanasios Velios <thanasis at softicon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Following the Linked Conservation Data workshop and the last SIG in
>> Crete I am summarising the problem of documenting non-existence.
>>
>> An example of non-existence is: a book cover (a particular) without
>> tooled decoration (a type).
>>
>> Options for encoding:
>>
>> 1) As discussed here:
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/2012-November/001873.html ,
>> we could have a new E55 Type "books without decoration". This is a good
>> solution but the problem is that we will need an unmanageable number of
>> composite thesaurus terms to cover all possibilities, e.g. things
>> without a feature, or types of events which did not happen etc.
>>
>> 2) In past SIGs we have mentioned negative properties. This is also a
>> good solution but not quite in scope. A negative property requires
>> particulars for domain and range. So I can say that:
>>
>> cover(E22 Man-Made Object) → NOT P56 bears feature → tooled
>> decoration(E25 Man-Made Feature)
>>
>> This would mean that the specific book does not carry the specific
>> decoration. But I want to say that the specific book does not carry any
>> decoration.
>>
>> 3) So I pestered Carlo for a few days and he says:
>>
>> "To express negative information in an ontology, it is recommended to
>> use specific axioms. For example, to state that certain books have no
>> decorations the axiom would require to create a special class for those
>> books and to make that class a sub-class of the class expression
>> 'individuals with less than 1 decorations'. This will require a class
>> and an axiom to be created for each type of negative information to be
>> expressed. But it has the advantage of using a standard OWL 2 DL
>> inference engine to reason about that negative knowledge, both for
>> maintaining consistency and for query answering."
>>
>> So what Carlo thinks is that option 1 is reasonable and in fact instead
>> of using simply a thesaurus, one should elevate these definitions to
>> ontology classes and axioms.
>>
>> I would be interested to hear views from the list, as I am not sure how
>> to model such statements. Those of you who have looked at this in the
>> past, do you get a sense of the scale for negation statements?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Thanasis
>>
>> P.S. A parallel thought which did not capture Carlo's imagination was a
>> "typed negative property", i.e. create new negative properties with E55
>> as range as in:
>>
>> cover(E22 Man-Made Object) → NOT P56 bears feature of type → tooled
>> decoration(E55 Type)
>>
>> but I am not sure how this would translate to logic in an inference
>> engine.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>> 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
> Chair, Examination Board for Arts, Culture and Archaeology / Chair,
> Faculty of Arts Advisory Board for Data Management policies
> Academia page <https://rug.academia.edu/MartijnvanLeusen>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing listCrm-sig at ics.forth.grhttp://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: martin at ics.forth.gr
>  Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> 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
Chair, Examination Board for Arts, Culture and Archaeology / Chair, Faculty
of Arts Advisory Board for Data Management policies
Academia page <https://rug.academia.edu/MartijnvanLeusen>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20191211/425bbe06/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list