[Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Mar 23 20:05:55 EET 2021


Dear Franco,

Now I am fairly confused about with what you actually agree:

You write:

"This concept was, indeed, an Attribute Assignment - quite obviously as 
it is its superclass so every measurement is an attribute assignment. 
But what should be pursued, in my opinion, is the right balance between 
(i) the proliferation of classes and properties and (ii) an excessive 
generalization. I am a bit scared by (i) 200 properties as well as by 
(ii) assigning too wide roles to very general entities. "

Whereas Francesco argues that for *reasons of monotonicity* the range of 
P39 should have been remained at E1 CRM Entity, and that even the scope 
note of E16 Measurement always defined measurement as a result of 
observation without any doubt, the range of P39 should not conform with 
the scope note:

The old scope note begins:
"This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties 
and other values that can be determined by a systematic, objective 
procedure of direct observation of particular states of physical reality."

You argue that the range of P39 to be E1 CRM Entity is NOT an excsessive 
generalization, whereas using E13 for quantitative properties of 
abstract items is an excessive generalization?

Your following statement finds my complete agreement:

"A more philosophical argument would consider that there is no such 
thing as “(pure) observation” as opposed to "abstraction": any 
observation is influenced by the observer. Besides Heisenberg's 
indetermination principle, it is a much debated issue. The Galilean 
method, also known as the scientific one, and the historical method, 
both converge and are to be used in cultural heritage. "

If I am not completely mistaken, you make a coimplication here. Whereas 
the scope note says that observation is *necessary*, you argue that pure 
observation is *not sufficient* for a Measurement.

Of course any "systematic objective procedure" is a product of 
hypothesis and its application. No current scientist would be so naive 
any more. See also "scientific realism" by James Ladyman and others.

I am a bit confused when you make arguments here about missing 
reliability assessment for questioning observation:

Never in my studies and research in physics I have done, seen or heard 
of a measurement without reliability assessment. The scientific method 
of observation that any scientist learns at the university , the 
"systematic objective procedure", can only be objective in terms of a 
reliability assessment and error margins. Nothing in the scope note of 
E16 implies that the results are 100% precise and true. Reliability can 
not be seperated from result.

By the way, we should always be careful citing quantum mechanics. 
Heisenberg's indetermination principle and the following quantum 
mechanical laws very precisely, numerically, define *how* the observer 
influences the observed system. This is not questioning observation as a 
method. It clarifies what you observe.

You write:

"So the justification that measurement is observation does not simplify, 
rather it complicates the decision."

Neither did the scope note of E16 ever state that "measurement *is* 
observation", nor was that the subject of the requested e-vote.

Let me add however, that

   (i) We model bottom up, and the CRMbase is not the place for a 
complete theory of measurement.

   (ii) Therefore the whole issue 511 was very conservative to be 
consistent with the intended scope of E16, as long as we have no better, 
consistent formulation.

   (iii) As long as we have no better consistent specific formulation, 
we always resort to the next superclass, which is E13 so far. This is 
not overloading E13. It is "epistemic humility" about E16.

   (iv) We have connected Issue 511 in the last SIG to producing a much 
more comprehensive representation of measurement.

We will be pleased to come back to the reliability assessment. 
Currently, error margins are foreseen for P90 has value.

As usual, I have the feeling that in reality, objectively😉, we agree???😁


All the best,

Martin



On 3/23/2021 5:10 PM, Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig wrote:
> I strongly agree with Francesco.
>
> Some time ago I wrote a paper about reliability assessment, suggesting that it could be considered a sort of measurement, perhaps a subclass of E16. It was not a proposal for the CRM SIG, just considerations about the fact that at present there is no satisfactory attribute to qualify reliability. This issue is very important for example to re-use data according to the R part of the FAIR principles. Such “attribute” needs to be machine-actionable and available for composition if data undergo several re-use passages: in sum, it has to be quantitative and preferably numeric, in the broad scope of E60 Number. Thus if one re-processes data that are 80% reliable also the results will be 80% reliable, in the best case, or less. Another processing with an error of 70% will produce new data reliable at 56%. I remember a famous project where archive documents were digitized, OCR-ed and then mined with NLP: nobody ever calculated the reliability of the final results.
>
> So the topic is not irrelevant, nor just a matter of gut feeling.
>
> This concept was, indeed, an Attribute Assignment - quite obviously as it is its superclass so every measurement is an attribute assignment. But what should be pursued, in my opinion, is the right balance between (i) the proliferation of classes and properties and (ii) an excessive generalization. I am a bit scared by (i) 200 properties as well as by (ii) assigning too wide roles to very general entities.
>
> Occam stated "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” and this in my opinion might possibly apply to the 200 properties. I would add that also unnecessary (praeter necessitatem) simplification should be better avoided, like in this case putting everything into a generic attribute assignment except some privileged activities that have a name (and a life) of their own.
>
> A more philosophical argument would consider that there is no such thing as “(pure) observation” as opposed to "abstraction": any observation is influenced by the observer. Besides Heisenberg's indetermination principle, it is a much debated issue. The Galilean method, also known as the scientific one, and the historical method, both converge and are to be used in cultural heritage. So the justification that measurement is observation does not simplify, rather it complicates the decision.
>
> Regards
>
> Franco
>
> By the way, for those who don’t know Latin, Occam’s razor means: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”.
>
>
> Prof. Franco Niccolucci
> Director, VAST-LAB
> PIN - U. of Florence
> Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus
> Technology Director 4CH
>
> Editor-in-Chief
> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
>
> Piazza Ciardi 25
> 59100 Prato, Italy
>
>
>> Il giorno 23 mar 2021, alle ore 14:20, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> ha scritto:
>>
>> Dear all,
>> as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, and more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class without changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of coins" is now excluded.
>>
>> So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the surface of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place for representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot be measured ?
>>
>> Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check :  "E54 Dimensions are associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension.  So not every class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70.
>> However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be measured.
>> I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to resolve this inconsistency."
>> Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical things is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an abstraction from observable things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 Measurement."
>> after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the issue) we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite different substance than the long period one.
>> Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract.
>>
>> My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is Attribute Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I partly agree but it seems to me that, given the radical change of substance, the consistency of the information produced before version 7.??? will be lost.
>>
>> So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new substance, restricted in the mentioned sense, and deprecate E16 if wished but leaving it as is for the sake of consistency of legacy information and monotonicity ?
>>
>> Given these arguments, I vote:
>> VETO.
>>
>> All the best
>> Francesco
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 19.03.21 à 11:37, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig a écrit :
>>> Dear all,
>>> At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check how scope notes and related properties are affected, recommend changes and call an e-vote for those. I am listing the required changes below. With regards to those changes, the possible votes are:
>>> 	• Yes = accept/agree
>>> 	• No = do not accept/agree
>>> 	• Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, but there is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish to stop the proposed change from happening, in which case you should also write a justification and reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is unacceptable because it violates the following principle...')
>>>
>>> 1. E16 Measurement
>>>
>>> Changed to clarify that E16 Measurement requires observation, including an update to an example and the removal of two examples.
>>>
>>> From:
>>>
>>> Subclass of:
>>>
>>> E13 Attribute Assignment
>>>
>>> Scope note:
>>>
>>> This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties and other values that can be determined by a systematic, objective procedure of direct observation of particular states of physical reality. Properties of instances of E90 Symbolic Object may be measured by observing some of their representative carriers which may or may not be named explicitly. In the case that the carrier can be named, the property P16 used specific object (was used for): should be used to indicate the instance(s) of E18 Physical Thing that was used as the empirical basis for the measurement activity.
>>>
>>> Examples include measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of coins or the running time of a movie on a specific video cassette.
>>>
>>> The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care applied, so that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later stage, or research continued on the associated documents. The date of the event is important for dimensions, which may change value over time, such as the length of an object subject to shrinkage. Methods and devices employed should be associated with instances of E16 Measurement by properties such as P33 used specific technique: E29 Design or Procedure, P125 used object of type: E55 Type, P16 used specific object (was used for): E70 Thing, whereas basic techniques such as "carbon 14 dating" should be encoded using P2 has type (is type of): E55 Type. Details of methods and devices reused or reusable in other instances of E16 Measurement should be documented for these entities rather than the measurements themselves, whereas details of particular execution may be documented by free text or by instantiating adequate sub-activities, if the detail may be of interest for an overarching query.
>>>
>>> Regardless whether a measurement is made by an instrument or by human senses, it represents the initial transition from physical reality to information without any other documented information object in between within the reasoning chain that would represent the result of the interaction of the observer or device with reality. Therefore, inferring properties of depicted items using image material, such as satellite images, is not regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement, but as a subsequent instance of E13 Attribute Assignment. Rather, only the production of the images, understood as arrays of radiation intensities, is regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement. The same reasoning holds for other sensor data.
>>>
>>> Examples:
>>> 	• measurement of height of silver cup 232 on the 31st August 1997 (fictitious)
>>> 	• the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 [an about 400.000 year old complete Old Palaeolithic wooden spear found in Schoeningen, Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995] (Kouwenhoven, 1997)
>>> 	• The pixel size of the jpeg version of Titian’s painting Bacchus and Ariadne from 1520–3, as freely downloadable from the National Gallery in London’s web page <https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/titian-bacchus-and-ariadne> is 581600 pixels.
>>> 	• The scope note of E21 Person in the Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model Version 5.0.4 as downloaded from <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/cidoc_crm_version_5.0.4.pdf> consists of 77 words.
>>>
>>> In First Order Logic:
>>>
>>> E16(x) ⇒ E13(x)
>>>
>>> Properties:
>>>
>>> P39 measured (was measured by): E1 CRM Entity
>>>
>>> P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension
>>>
>>>
>>> To:
>>>
>>> Subclass of:
>>>
>>> E13 Attribute Assignment
>>>
>>> Scope note:
>>>
>>> This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties that can be determined by a systematic, objective procedure of direct observation of particular states of physical reality.
>>>
>>> An instance of E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care applied, so that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later stage, or research continued from the associated documents. The date of the event is important for dimensions, which may change value over time, such as the length of an object subject to shrinkage. Methods and devices employed should be associated with instances of E16 Measurement by properties such as P33 used specific technique: E29 Design or Procedure, P125 used object of type: E55 Type, P16 used specific object (was used for): E70 Thing, whereas basic techniques such as "carbon 14 dating" should be encoded using P2 has type (is type of): E55 Type. Details of methods and devices reused or reusable in other instances of E16 Measurement should be documented for these entities rather than the measurements themselves, whereas details of particular execution may be documented by free text or by instantiating adequate sub-activities, if the detail may be of interest for an overarching query.
>>>
>>> Regardless whether a measurement is made by an instrument or by human senses, it represents the initial transition from physical reality to information without any other documented information object in the reasoning chain that would represent the result of the interaction of the observer or device with reality. Therefore, determining properties of an instance of E90 Symbolic Object is regarded as an instance of E13 Attribute Assignment, which may be inferred from observing and measuring representative carriers. In the case that the carrier can be named, the property P16 used specific object (was used for): should be used to indicate the instance(s) of E18 Physical Thing that was used as the empirical basis for the attribute assignment. For instance, inferring properties of depicted items using image material, such as satellite images, is not regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement, but as a subsequent instance of E13 Attribute Assignment. Rather, only the production of the images, understood as arrays of radiation intensities, is regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement. The same reasoning holds for other sensor data.
>>>
>>> Examples:
>>> 	• measurement of height of silver cup 232 on the 31st August 1997 (fictitious)
>>> 	• the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 [The carbon 14 dating of an approximately 400.000 year old complete Old Palaeolithic wooden spear found in Schoeningen, Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995] (Kouwenhoven, 1997)
>>>
>>> In First Order Logic:
>>>
>>> E16(x) ⇒ E13(x)
>>>
>>> Properties:
>>>
>>> P39 measured (was measured by): E18 Physical Thing
>>>
>>> P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. P39 measured (was measured by)
>>>
>>> Changed to reduce the range to E18, update the scope note and the second example.
>>>
>>> From:
>>>
>>> Domain:
>>>
>>> E16 Measurement
>>>
>>> Range:
>>>
>>> E1 CRM Entity
>>>
>>> Subproperty of:
>>>
>>> E13 Attribute Assignment. P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by): E1 CRM Entity
>>>
>>> Quantification:
>>>
>>> many to one, necessary (1,1:0,n)
>>>
>>> Scope note:
>>>
>>> This property associates an instance of E16 Measurement with the instance of E1 CRM Entity to which it applied. An instance of E1 CRM Entity may be measured more than once. Material and immaterial things and processes may be measured, e.g., the number of words in a text, or the duration of an event.
>>>
>>> Examples:
>>> 	• 31 August 1997 measurement of height of silver cup 232 (E16) measured silver cup 232 (E22) (fictitious)
>>>
>>> In First Order Logic:
>>>
>>> P39(x,y) ⇒ E16(x)
>>>
>>> P39(x,y) ⇒ E1(y)
>>>
>>> P39(x,y) ⇒ P140(x,y)
>>>
>>>
>>> To:
>>>
>>>
>>> Domain:
>>>
>>> E16 Measurement
>>>
>>> Range:
>>>
>>> E18 Physical Thing
>>>
>>> Subproperty of:
>>>
>>> E13 Attribute Assignment. P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by): E1 CRM Entity
>>>
>>> Quantification:
>>>
>>> many to one, necessary (1,1:0,n)
>>>
>>> Scope note:
>>>
>>> This property associates an instance of E16 Measurement with the instance of E18 Physical Thing upon which it acted. The instance of E16 Measurement is specific to the measured object. An instance of E18 Physical Thing may be measured more than once with different results, constituting different instances of E16 Measurement.
>>>
>>> Examples:
>>> 	• 31 August 1997 measurement of height of silver cup 232 (E16) measured silver cup 232 (E22) (fictitious)
>>> 	• the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 (E16) measured the “Schoeninger Speer II” (E22) [The carbon 14 dating of an approximately 400.000 year old complete Old Palaeolithic wooden spear found in Schoeningen, Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995. See also E16 Measurement] (Kouwenhoven, 1997)
>>>
>>>
>>> In First Order Logic:
>>>
>>> P39(x,y) ⇒ E16(x)
>>>
>>> P39(x,y) ⇒ E18(y)
>>>
>>> P39(x,y) ⇒ P140(x,y)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by)
>>>
>>> Only updated the reference P39 measured as a sub-property of P140.
>>>
>>> From:
>>>
>>>
>>> Superproperty of:
>>>
>>> E14 Condition Assessment. P34 concerned (was assessed by): E18 Physical Thing
>>>
>>> E16 Measurement. P39 measured (was measured by): E1 CRM Entity
>>>
>>> E17 Type Assignment. P41 classified (was classified by): E1 CRM Entity
>>>
>>>
>>> To:
>>>
>>>
>>> Superproperty of:
>>>
>>> E14 Condition Assessment. P34 concerned (was assessed by): E18 Physical Thing
>>>
>>> E16 Measurement. P39 measured (was measured by): E18 Physical Thing
>>>
>>> E17 Type Assignment. P41 classified (was classified by): E1 CRM Entity
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. P40 observed dimension (was observed in)
>>>
>>> Added a second example:
>>>
>>> 	• the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 (E16) observed dimension the carbon 14 based temporal distance from 1996 to the growth of the wood of the “Schoeninger Speer II” [The carbon 14 dating of an approximately 400.000 year old complete Old Palaeolithic wooden spear found in Schoeningen, Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995. See also E16 Measurement] (Kouwenhoven, 1997)
>>>
>>> 5. P43 has dimension (is dimension of)
>>>
>>> Modified scope note to indicate that the long path through P39i was measured by applies to E18 Physical Thingand not E70 Thing (note that this change does not affect the domain of P43).
>>>
>>> From:
>>>
>>>
>>> Domain:
>>>
>>> E70 Thing
>>>
>>> Range:
>>>
>>> E54 Dimension
>>>
>>> Quantification:
>>>
>>> one to many, dependent (0,n:1,1)
>>>
>>> Scope note:
>>>
>>> This property records a E54 Dimension of some E70 Thing.
>>>
>>> This property is a shortcut of the more fully developed path from E70 Thing through P39i was measured by, E16 Measurement, P40 observed dimension, to E54 Dimension. It offers no information about how and when an E54 Dimension was established, nor by whom.
>>>
>>> An instance of E54 Dimension is specific to an instance of E70 Thing.
>>>
>>> Examples:
>>> 	• silver cup 232 (E22) has dimension height of silver cup 232 (E54) has unit (P91) mm (E58), has value (P90) 224 (E60) (fictitious)
>>>
>>> In First Order Logic:
>>>
>>> P43(x,y) ⇒ E70(x)
>>>
>>> P43(x,y) ⇒ E54(y)
>>>
>>> P43(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [E16(z) ˄ P39i(x,z) ˄ P40(z,y)]
>>>
>>>
>>> To:
>>>
>>>
>>> Domain:
>>>
>>> E70 Thing
>>>
>>> Range:
>>>
>>> E54 Dimension
>>>
>>> Quantification:
>>>
>>> one to many, dependent (0,n:1,1)
>>>
>>> Scope note:
>>>
>>> This property records a E54 Dimension of some E70 Thing.
>>>
>>> It offers no information about how and when an instance of E54 Dimension was established, nor by whom. In the case that the recorded property is a result of a measurement of an instance of E18 Physical Thing, this property is a shortcut of the more fully developed path from E18 Physical Thing through P39i was measured by, E16 Measurement, P40 observed dimension, to E54 Dimension. It offers no information about how and when an E54 Dimension was established, nor by whom. Knowledge about an instance of E54 Dimension need not be result of a measurement; it may be the result of evaluating data or other information, which should be documented as an instance of E13 Attribute Assignment.
>>>
>>> An instance of E54 Dimension is specific to an instance of E70 Thing.
>>>
>>> Examples:
>>> 	• silver cup 232 (E22) has dimension height of silver cup 232 (E54) has unit (P91) mm (E58), has value (P90) 224 (E60) (fictitious)
>>>
>>> In First Order Logic:
>>>
>>> P43(x,y) ⇒ E70(x)
>>>
>>> P43(x,y) ⇒ E54(y)
>>>
>>> P43(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [E16(z) ˄ P39i(x,z) ˄ P40(z,y)]
>>>
>>>
>>> Please send your e-votes by the 26th of March.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Thanasis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>>
>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> 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: martin at ics.forth.gr
  Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20210323/16ca5e73/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list