Issue 254: CRMinf

Starting Date: 
2014-07-31
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Done
Background: 

Posted by Stephen Stead on 31/7/2014 

Dear all 
Here is the link to a proposal for an extension that covers argumentation and inference making, tentatively entitled CRMinf (the other suggestion was CRMarg but I felt CRMinf was more whimsical!). The text was largely prepared by myself in consultation with Martin so errors are mine! It has arisen from a combination of our work (Dominic, Jonathan and myself) on the Sloan catalogues at the BM and the original Argumentation work done at FORTH. 
It prompted my suggestion of a scope note change to E73 which has been such a topic of debate in the last few days. We would like to propose this as an approved extension to the CRM SIG once any errors have been corrected and comments incorporated. 

I hope you enjoy it 
Rgds 
SdS 

http://old.cidoc-crm.org/technical_papers.html
 

Current Proposal: 

In 31st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG, ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 24th FRBR - CIDOC CRM, discussing about CRMinf made the following comments:

 • Belief (I2); the logic of initiation and ending of a belief should be in the introduction. It should be part of the practical or theoretical scope.
• The proof function is implicitly, Martin and Maria Daskalaki will write something about empirical science in order to be included in the introduction
• Discussing about I5; We decided to  add something about  knowledge dependency  by MD and Steve
• Discussing about I6; we argued about the appropriate super class of I6, should be the E59 Primitive or something else? This is under consideration.
• Discussing about I7; we wondered about if trust is a parameter of belief adoption? We decided to think about this and to investigate if a more relax notion should be developed.
• In J6 we accepted that a property is needed showing the source of the belief adoption. Steve will elaborate it.

The CRMinf has been accepted by CRM sig. This issue is closed

Heraklion, Crete, October 2014

posted by Martin Doerr and Maria Daskalaki   on 4/2/2015

Maria (and I) propose the following explanation:

Descriptive sciences are all the sciences that collect, observe, describe phenomena and find straightforward correlations between them without a particular scientific hypothesis in mind. Empirical sciences aim to explain the observed phenomena and to draw hypothetical conclusions about their behavior and their relationships under given circumstances. Since the argumentation and inference making in both sciences are based on observation of the sensory data, they can be considered as “empirical sciences” in a wider sense. In this perspective, the sciences that perform experiments to test their conclusions about the observed phenomena can be regarded as a subcategory of “empirical sciences”. Thus, according to our view descriptive and empirical sciences are not competitive but complementary.   

Outcome: 

he 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewing the CRMinf made the following changes

(1) it is accepted the text for descriptive and empirical science

(2) The text  about the  logic of initiation and ending of a belief  in the scope note of I2 belief  has been moved to 1.1.1 Scope

(3) The scope note of I5, I7 have been changed

(4) The property J7 is based on evidence from (is evidence for) has been added

(5) Examples have been added to I1, I2, I3, I4,I5, I6, I7, J1, J2, J3, J4,J5

(6) Discussing about I6 Belief Value,  we revised the scope note of E59 Primitive Value in CRM. Texts from MD and Dominic has been accepted.

The new version you may find here 

Oxford february 2015