Issue 359: mental state
posted by Martin on 10/1/2018
I propose to introduce a class "mental state" as superclass of intention and belief.
I argue that "mental state" is neither a relationship nor a "state" in the epistemological sense
we have defined, regardless the label. I argue that it is actively maintained, can be witnessed, become weak, fuzzy and depends existentially on
the carrier, possibly a group. As such, it is a phenomenon in its own right. I regard it to be directly a subclass of
E2, parallel to the condition state.
posted by Richard on 11/1/2018
Can you please give a use case where "mental state" is required to express a concept actually found in cultural heritage documentation?
posted by Martin on 11/1/2018
So far it already appears in the plans model as "intention", characteristically documented via "letters of commitment", parliamentary decisions, group decision, exhibition announcements etc., often integrated with the description of the planned activity or goal itself. See, e.g., the CO2 emission reduction goals, or warfare documentation.
It further appears in CRM Inf as "belief", characteristically documented as opinions, often implicit in the description of the believed fact. It becomes interesting, when we document changes of knowledge or believes, as in history of science, but it can also be about religious concepts.
In the 43rd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 36th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig decided to close this issue and continue the discussion about mental state in the issue 419
Heraklion, March 2019