[Crm-sig] 511 e-vote
george.bruseker at gmail.com
Thu Mar 25 14:43:35 EET 2021
I also think that the decision was taken too fast and introduced at a final
moment as a fait accompli. Regardless of the ontological purity behind the
decision, there is a community of use to take into account. I indicated
also a no vote to adopting this measure in the meeting for this reason. I
understood that the acceptance of going to an evote would be to try to
build the concensus, not indicate that it is a realized decision and we can
only change the details.
It is no hill I want to die on, but I think given its practical
ramifications to the user community it should have either been given more
air time earlier in order to build concensus and consider alternatives or
have been left as an issue to resolve for another day.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:12 AM Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig <
crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> Dear Martin,
> It is to me to thank you so much for taking the time to restate the whole
> issue from the point of view of the methodology used to develop the CRM,
> making very clear the reasons for the decision that was taken by the SIG. I
> understand your arguments and they are certainly robust in the point of
> view of the scientific method, and more specifically physics.
> My concern is about the adoption of the CIDOC CRM by a larger community,
> making it a widely used ontology in the domain of digital humanities and
> social sciences, which are interconnected with museums and other GLAM
> actors, all of them being active in the domain of cultural heritage, for
> conservation or for scientific exploration.
> Restricting the scope of the E16 Measurement class after years of use in a
> more generic sense, whether or not it is the substance intended by the
> insiders from the beginning, poses in my opinion a problem which I think
> should be analysed from this larger point of view. More in general the
> methodology the SIG adopts to develop the CRM should in my opinion take
> into account this development towards a larger community of users and the
> need expressed by more and more people and projects to have an ontology to
> fill the interoperability gap in cultural heritage domain intended in a
> broad, multi-disciplinary sense.
> These considerations also apply to the articulation between the different
> extensions in the CRM family, in which the approaches of the different
> disciplines can be expressed more clearly, and refer to wide spread
> standards in the different domains, leaving CRMbase with a generic
> character that makes it the pivot of interoperability. It should be noted
> that the growing demand is not only for data integration but also, and
> especially, for new information production.
> I personally advocate the adoption of CIDOC CRM in the context of this
> broader vision, and often seek to make clear to external users
> methodological choices taken by the CRM SIG, and the meaning of aspects of
> the ontology that are less directly understandable, without specific
> training, in communities wishing to adopt it. And I believe, especially
> when I compare our activity with that of the maintainers of other
> standards, such as TEI, that a more community driven approach in the
> development of the CRM would facilitate its understanding and adoption, and
> thus further enhance the value of all the work that has been done over the
> years to develop the robust model that we know and cherish.
> With all my thanks and best wishes
> Dr. habil. Francesco Beretta
> Chargé de recherche au CNRS,
> Axe de recherche histoire numérique,
> Laboratoire de recherche historique Rhône-Alpes
> LARHRA UMR CNRS 5190,
> MSH LSE,
> 14, Avenue Berthelot
> 69363 LYON CEDEX 07
> + 33 (0)6 51 8 4 48 84
> Le projet dataforhistory.org – Ontology Management Environment OntoME
> Projet "FAIR data" en histoire
> Le projet symogih.org– SPARQL endpoint
> Portail de ressources géo-historiques GEO-LARHRA
> Portail de ressources textuelles
> <http://xml-portal.symogih.org/index.html> au format XML
> Cours Outils numériques pour les sciences historiques
> Le 23.03.21 à 21:47, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :
> Dear Fancesco,
> Thank you very much for reconsidering and withdrawing your veto. By
> mistake, I send my message before finishing it.
> Please let me be more analytical about the arguments.
> Your arguments in the SIG meeting have been well understood and well
> respected, and been evaluated against the alternatives and *by no means *ignored
> or *regarded as irrelevant*.
> Summarizing the arguments pro:
> 1) Even though the range of P39 until 7.1 was E1 CRM Entity, it should
> never has been used in CRM applications for things other than instances of
> E70 Thing. Therefore, the range of P39 should be restricted at least to E70
> 2) According to the scope note of E16, a Measurement is the result of
> observing a physical thing.
> The old and new 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."
> 3) Determining or inferring instances of P43 has dimension can be the
> result of different kinds of processes.
> For instances of E28 Conceptual Objects, these processes are not E16
> Measurement, but evaluation of results, as *clearly stated in the old
> scope note*:
> "Properties of instances of E90 Symbolic Object may be measured by
> observing some of their representative *carriers*...." and
> "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.*"
> 4) Since the processes for inferring instances of P43 has dimension can be
> documented using E13 Attribute Assignment, it is not necessary that the
> range of P39 includes non-physical things in order to document how a
> dimension of an instance of E70 Thing was found. This is already described
> in the old scope note.
> Of *paramount importance* is the interpretation that a measurement
> implies the *physical presence *of an object of evidence. Physical
> presence is one of the most fundamental reasoning processes in the CRM,
> which must not be abandoned or confused. In how far results are repeatable,
> precise etc. is *all *secondary to the fact that a present physical thing
> has empirically be evaluated.
> Therefore, the *e-vote is about the consistency *of the correction of
> the scope notes with the basic meaning of the old scope note of E16, and
> the correct propagation of all ramifications of the already decided
> reduction of the range of P39.
> 5) Since in version 7.1 we do, for good reasons, no more require all
> properties of compatible extensions to be subproperties of CRMbase
> properties, S21 Measurement in CRMsci needs no more be subclass of E16
> Measurement for formal reasons. The *inadequate range of P39* however
> *prevented* developing adequate generalization of E16 Measurement in
> CRMsci. The decision to reduce P39 to E18 Physical Thing in the ISO
> standard to come *enables* CRMsci to be developed as it should. Not doing
> it, *would have blocked CRMsci* for a decade.
> Please allow me to answer below your statements:
> On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
> 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*.
> As stated above by citing the old scope note, I kindly ask you to consider
> that we have good reasons not to regard the decision as "substantially
> changing the substance" of E16, but as respecting the very substance, in
> contrast to border cases.
> It is not true that "measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection
> of coins" is now *excluded*. It is true that it no more explicitly
> meantioned as an important application. It was deleted because it is
> amgiguous about the evaluation method, and therefore regarded as not
> particularly useful.
> The paramount application of E16 is conservation technology in museum,
> monuments, and archaeometry, not counting pixels of images or money. Would
> you indeed disagree?
> 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 ?
> If you have followed e-mail discussions last year, we discussed that the
> surface of a Physical Feature, including settlements etc., can quite well
> be measured with the new model and *falls under E18 Physical Thing*.
> In 7.1, E53 Place does not have P43 has dimension anyway, because E53
> Place is not subclass of E70 Thing.
> You may have missed in the last meeting that the assignment of dimensions
> to E53 Place was *decided *as a *new issue* for edition 7.2, because it
> needs more thinking.
> 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.
> This is confusing the decision. The class is not restricted to a radical
> change of substance, but reduced in scope. If you disagree, please make
> constructive arguments to the above. Please consult those who do
> measurements in their daily practice.
> It is simply logically wrong that information produced before version
> 7.??? will be lost. The migration path provided is definitely loss-free
> from a technical point of view.
> 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
> This argument has been understood in the SIG meeting. It would however be
> a new issue, not 511. I hope you are aware that you require priority of
> counting coins and words over the whole discipline of conservation
> technology and archaeometry, which measues as described in the scope note
> of E16. Is that really what you advocate for?
> Concluding, CRM SIG takes the issue of monotonicity
> *utterly serious. *You may have missed the argument in the SIG discussion
> that we have evaluated:
> The "con" of a backwards incompatibility before going to ISO,
> of applications which are *not core*, with a *loss-free* migration
> and together with *another set* of migration instructions.
> against to "pro" of a consistent model of measurement, in scope notes
> examples and properties,
> which will enable the development of a scientifically correct
> wider model
> of measurement in CRMsci.
> and against delaying the decision of a monotonicity break for a time when
> the new ISO standard will be underway.
> I hope I could clarify with the above my and CRM-SIG's deep respect for
> all arguments and absolute sincerity to evaluate all arguments on a
> rational, comprehensible basis, including yours you described in the
> meeting and repeated above.
> All the best,
> Given these arguments, I vote:
> All the best
> 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
> Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
> Crm-sig mailing listCrm-sig at ics.forth.grhttp://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig