Issue 366: Belief conditions for the input data of the data evaluation process

Starting Date: 
Working Group: 

In the 40th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 33nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting,  the crm-sig resolving the issue 332 and discussed about the Thanasis Velios comment that  we need a property to link S6 with the data with which we make the calculation, decided to open new issue to formulate the belief conditions for the input data of the data evaluation process. Need to add a link of input data AND this has to be connected to CRMdig.

Cologne, January 2018

Current Proposal: 

In the 41st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 34th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig decided to assign HW to Thanasis, MD and OE the resolution of this issue.

Lyon, May 2018

Posted by Thanasis on 18/11/2018

Dear all,

Please find attached an attempt to model S6 Data Evaluation in relation to the D9 Data Object. The question is whether a direct property between the two is needed, or whether we can model it through CRMinf and what the conditions would be. I would like to double-check with you my understanding of CRminf as there are no cardinalities in the current draft.

In the example of calculating the height of a statue from the size of a fragment of the foot, we need to consider that:

1) The height of statues are proportional to the sizes of the corresponding feet (linear interpolation), 

2) The material of the statue is stable in dimension over the centuries

Understanding 1:
If these two are considered as two different I5 Inference Makings (because they use two different I3 Inference Logics), then connecting D9 to S6 is possible through CRMinf, although it is a long path.

Understanding 2:
If these two are considered as one I5 Inference Making, then I think there is no way to tell which proposition S6 refers to and a new property is needed. In this case the D9 Data Object has to be part of
the proposition set.

In both cases the I6 Belief Value should be True on the proposition set for the evaluation to make sense.


Meetings discussed: