In the 53rd CIDOC CRM & 46th FRBRoo SIG meeting, the Sig appointed the team at FORTH to come up with a proposal re where to publish the following sources that analyze research questions, in a way that leaves no room for ambiguity re what counts as a research question.
- the Analysis of Scientific Questions in Archaeology somewhere on the CIDOC CRM website
- the research questions that the modelling in SeaLit provides an answer to
- The CRM Requirements Analysis (described in the deliverable for the Chios Project) –and the document where the questions are listed.
- the PhD Dissertation by Stephen Hennicke (the research questions he used).
HW: FORTH to make a proposal (PF, ETs, AS, CB) –Important theories that now sits empty, or Use cases, or Scope (under “About & Info”) or something else (new)?
May 2022
Post by Eleni Tsouloucha (9 September 2022)
Dear all,
Please take a moment to review FORTHs HW for Issue 601 .
Best,
Eleni.
In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, the SIG reviewed HW by FORTH -a proposal re. where the documents showcasing methodological principles motivating particular modelling decisions should appear on the site.
The proposal was that the documents be accessed on The Model\Use & Learn\Methodology\Ontology Engineering Methodology (in underscore, the new link on the website).
As the identified documents fall under different categories (based on formal criteria), they will be classified as Resources\References, Resources\Technical Papers and Resources\Publications, respectively and they will also appear as links in the new subsite under Methodology.
Discussion points:
- Some explanatory text is needed as an introduction to the “Ontology Engineering Methodology” subsite. HW has to be assigned.
- Alternative places to consider for the new link to appear under: The Model\User Guidance\Ontology Engineering Methodology (new link in underscore).
- The documents should be made prominent on the site.
NO Decision. FORTH to revise the proposal.
Rome, September 2022
In the 55th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 48th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting, the SIG reviewed HW by FORTH.
Proposal for a new link on the site where methodological documents should appear under. Details (mock-up for methodology landing page) here.
Discussion points:
- The scientific research questions are an empirical source in support of the methodology observed. This is not evident from lumping together all sorts of methodological documents and not specifying how they should be used or what purpose they serve.
- Either have a separate subsite just for scientific research questions and a separate one for methodology, or if they are both found in the same page, then they should be separated by some delimiter –could be a horizontal line in a tabular representation.
- Splitting up the page in two and adding a subtitle to the research questions bit along the lines of: “Research questions in support of the methodology for modelling ontologies” could do the trick. This way, navigating the site does not become way too complicated through the addition of multiple links
- An overall text that describes what Methodology is about is needed too.
- “Presentation date” is plainly wrong for Dissertations, published papers etc. It should either be Release Date or just Date. Needs to be checked for all the resources published on the site.
Way to move forward:
- FORTH to present a new mock-up link under Methodology, where the empirical data in support of the methodology (a.k.a. “Scientific research questions”) will appear separate from the guidelines for bottom-up modelling.
- Add to this set the questions used in the Notre Dame restauration project –supplied by AG (see issue 587).
- FORTH to reconsider the “Presentation Date” labels that are used throughout the site
Belval, December 2022
In the 56th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 &49th FRBR/LRMoo SIG, the SIG reviewed the mockup page for “Methodology and research questions supporting ontology building”, found under “Use & Learn\Methodology”. It consists of 4 subsections:
- Methodology for ontology building (the last two edited versions of the Principles for Modelling Ontologies: A short reference guide)
- Principles for Modelling ontologies -enhanced with use cases of bottom-up modelling (the introduction of the short reference guide, new class/property admission checklist, polysemic concepts differentiation in the form of ontological classes)
- Guidelines for writing scope notes & annotated examples
- Research questions in support of ontology building (scientific questions in archaeology, SeaLiT, Notre Dame de Paris, PhD by S.Hennicke, CRM Requirement Analysis)
Discussion points:
- Strictly speaking the mockup does not qualify as a “Use & Learn” material, but since the site will be drastically updated soon, it can be published there for the moment.
Decision:
- Publish it as it is
- Appoint HW to draft short descriptions for each subsection.
Crete, May 2023
In the 57th CIDOC CRM & 50th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, the SIG reviewed and admitted the chunks of text that were introduced as a description to the various sections of the link Methodology and research questions supporting ontology building.
Discussion points:
The scope notes and not their formal representations are the definitions of classes and properties. When we translate the CRM, it is the scope notes that we translate, not the labels or the FOLs. The FOLs in and of themselves do not have a meaning unless they are linked to the scope notes.
The clause below (used as an executive summary) was lifted from the Guidelines for writing scope notes and annotated examples to. It needs to undergo editing, but this will be handled in a separate issue (see 658).
- Scope notes are not formal modelling constructs (e.g. they cannot be used directly for machine implementations), but are provided to help explain the intended meaning of the CIDOC CRM’s classes and properties, and where they apply.”
Decision:
Remove the chunk in parentheses in the text above from the description on the site.
Issue closed