Meeting Notes - 08.07.2022 #34
rartino
started this conversation in
Meeting notes
Replies: 0 comments
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Participants:
Joana Francisco Morgado(will not return, for now)Recap
Recapping where the task group work is at.
Restarting meetings Fridays bi-weekly from 13:30-15:00 (CEST) (1:30-3:00 PM).
Emanuele is showing us around the CIF-ontology repository.
Specifically, the top ontology here:
cif_ddl.ttl.He outlines also the way in which the crystallography domain ontology will be included in the EMMO.
Namely, it will be incorporating the CIF-ontology into the EMMO via more "generic" crystallography ontological concepts.
EMMO-Crystallography domain ontology
Under the "Data" perspective, "Crystallographical" will be a "Language".
Under this, "CIF" is defined.
Under the "Physicalistic" perspective, "CrystallineMaterial" is defined as a "Material".
We're defining "Crystal" also as a subclass of the "Solid" "StateOfMatter".
In the latest meetings we were discussing what other kind of "StateOfMatter" could be used, or where else the top-crystallography definitions might fit into the EMMO.
This is an important aspect to get started.
Ontology incorporation
Emanuele outlines the Discipline Level and Domain Level differences in the EMMO.
The intention being that the general concepts agreed to be used within the discipline should be included within the EMMO Middle Level Ontologies (MLO), meaning it will be generally accessible when importing the EMMO.
The CIF-ontology will always only be part of the Domain Level.
Possibly as a "mapped" ontology.
Next steps
Emanuele suggests to consider a sample, or real material, for determining which concepts should be added.
This is kind of what was the central subject about where to place "Crystal" as well.
Discussion
The difference between perspectives in the EMMO is important.
For example, if "Poly-crystalline" is defined under the physicalistic perspective, it will open the door for a "hard commit" to stating a measured sample is a poly-crystalline material. There is no room for "lies".
However, if the concept is put under the data perspective, one can instead state that a data set from an experiment performed on the sample determines the sample to be poly-crystalline.
This is a more "weak commit", which allows for the actual sample being a "Material" or "Crystal", while different experiments on the same sample can come to different solutions.
This will allow the ontology to properly represent "science".
We should focus on the data perspective and figure out data/model concepts to describe the real world/physicalistic perspective.
Next meeting: 22nd of July 2022, 1:30-3:00 PM (CEST)
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions