{
"title": "Keep the claim and its grounds together — Ontologies & vocabularies",
"text": "MODAVIS (2026). Keep the claim and its grounds together — Ontologies & vocabularies. Research notebooks, September 2026 · expanded edition. https://modavis.org/editions/2026-09-r3/ontologies/evidence/",
"bibtex": "@misc{modavis_ontologies_evidence_2026_09_r3,\n author = {{MODAVIS}},\n title = {Keep the claim and its grounds together — Ontologies & vocabularies},\n year = {2026},\n month = {09},\n version = {2026-09-r3},\n url = {https://modavis.org/editions/2026-09-r3/ontologies/evidence/},\n note = {Content SHA-256: 28daed062074929df83b7f42a9830d6acf16837732457030538f6b4032471db2}\n}",
"url": "https://modavis.org/editions/2026-09-r3/ontologies/evidence/",
"sha256": "28daed062074929df83b7f42a9830d6acf16837732457030538f6b4032471db2",
"edition": "2026-09-r3",
"date": "2026-09-26",
"canonicalPayload": "{\"book\":{\"number\":\"07\",\"slug\":\"ontologies\",\"title\":\"Ontologies & vocabularies\"},\"chapter\":{\"blocks\":[{\"text\":\"The ontology distinguishes a source, a fixed snapshot of that source, a relevant fragment and the claim supported by it. It also represents conflicts and editorial decisions. A simplified research view can then remain connected to the richer account behind it.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"caption\":\"Evidence and decisions support a representation; an interface provides one view of that representation.\",\"kind\":\"evidence\",\"type\":\"figure\"},{\"id\":\"time\",\"text\":\"Time and context are not optional decoration\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"A component’s role or an instrument’s configuration can depend on a historical state. An assertion’s applicability can depend on context. If the scope is not known, it should not silently become universal.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"validation\",\"text\":\"Validate the model, review the interpretation\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"OWL distinctions and SHACL constraints help catch incompatible identities and malformed data. They complement, rather than replace, source criticism and organological judgement.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"evidence-chain\",\"text\":\"A source, a fragment and an assertion\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"headers\":[\"Record\",\"Purpose\"],\"rows\":[[\"Source\",\"Identifies the publication, collection or other source being consulted.\"],[\"Fixed snapshot\",\"Identifies the particular captured or versioned form of that source.\"],[\"Fragment or selector\",\"Locates the passage, image region or other relevant part.\"],[\"Assertion\",\"States an attributable claim with its scope and status.\"],[\"Decision and projection\",\"Records how a reviewed interpretation becomes available in a research view.\"]],\"type\":\"table\"},{\"text\":\"A stable source URL is useful but may not identify the wording that was actually read. A fixed snapshot and a precise selector make a claim more inspectable, while a source citation helps readers assess authorship and context. Fixity establishes content identity; source criticism addresses whether the content warrants the claim.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"retain-conflict\",\"text\":\"Retain conflict as information\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"If two sources disagree about a maker or a date, preserve both attributed assertions and record the interpretation separately. An accepted convenience view can show a selected result while still exposing alternatives and reasons. Rejecting an interpretation should not make the original source vanish, and superseded decisions should remain distinguishable from currently accepted ones.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"context-provenance\",\"text\":\"Context is different from provenance\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"Provenance explains how a statement entered the research record. Context explains where or when the statement applies. Knowing who extracted a stop assignment does not establish which historical configuration it describes. Conversely, knowing the intended configuration does not identify the source and processing steps that support it. Both relationships matter, and an unspecified context should remain unspecified rather than becoming a universal claim.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"text\":\"A reviewer may accept one interpretation from a source while leaving another unresolved. A blanket “trusted source” label is too coarse to express the different grounds of individual claims.\",\"title\":\"Review follows the claim\",\"type\":\"note\"},{\"items\":[{\"detail\":\"The published semantic model.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22126086\",\"label\":\"MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0\"}],\"type\":\"links\"}],\"intro\":\"An accepted fact can be useful without making its supporting evidence disappear.\",\"slug\":\"evidence\",\"sources\":[{\"detail\":\"The published semantic model.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22126086\",\"label\":\"MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0\"}],\"title\":\"Keep the claim and its grounds together\"},\"date\":\"2026-09-26\",\"edition\":\"2026-09-r3\",\"figures\":{\"evidence\":\"\"}}",
"payload": {
"edition": "2026-09-r3",
"date": "2026-09-26",
"book": {
"slug": "ontologies",
"title": "Ontologies & vocabularies",
"number": "07"
},
"chapter": {
"slug": "evidence",
"title": "Keep the claim and its grounds together",
"intro": "An accepted fact can be useful without making its supporting evidence disappear.",
"blocks": [
{
"type": "p",
"text": "The ontology distinguishes a source, a fixed snapshot of that source, a relevant fragment and the claim supported by it. It also represents conflicts and editorial decisions. A simplified research view can then remain connected to the richer account behind it."
},
{
"type": "figure",
"kind": "evidence",
"caption": "Evidence and decisions support a representation; an interface provides one view of that representation."
},
{
"type": "heading",
"text": "Time and context are not optional decoration",
"id": "time"
},
{
"type": "p",
"text": "A component’s role or an instrument’s configuration can depend on a historical state. An assertion’s applicability can depend on context. If the scope is not known, it should not silently become universal."
},
{
"type": "heading",
"text": "Validate the model, review the interpretation",
"id": "validation"
},
{
"type": "p",
"text": "OWL distinctions and SHACL constraints help catch incompatible identities and malformed data. They complement, rather than replace, source criticism and organological judgement."
},
{
"type": "heading",
"text": "A source, a fragment and an assertion",
"id": "evidence-chain"
},
{
"type": "table",
"headers": [
"Record",
"Purpose"
],
"rows": [
[
"Source",
"Identifies the publication, collection or other source being consulted."
],
[
"Fixed snapshot",
"Identifies the particular captured or versioned form of that source."
],
[
"Fragment or selector",
"Locates the passage, image region or other relevant part."
],
[
"Assertion",
"States an attributable claim with its scope and status."
],
[
"Decision and projection",
"Records how a reviewed interpretation becomes available in a research view."
]
]
},
{
"type": "p",
"text": "A stable source URL is useful but may not identify the wording that was actually read. A fixed snapshot and a precise selector make a claim more inspectable, while a source citation helps readers assess authorship and context. Fixity establishes content identity; source criticism addresses whether the content warrants the claim."
},
{
"type": "heading",
"text": "Retain conflict as information",
"id": "retain-conflict"
},
{
"type": "p",
"text": "If two sources disagree about a maker or a date, preserve both attributed assertions and record the interpretation separately. An accepted convenience view can show a selected result while still exposing alternatives and reasons. Rejecting an interpretation should not make the original source vanish, and superseded decisions should remain distinguishable from currently accepted ones."
},
{
"type": "heading",
"text": "Context is different from provenance",
"id": "context-provenance"
},
{
"type": "p",
"text": "Provenance explains how a statement entered the research record. Context explains where or when the statement applies. Knowing who extracted a stop assignment does not establish which historical configuration it describes. Conversely, knowing the intended configuration does not identify the source and processing steps that support it. Both relationships matter, and an unspecified context should remain unspecified rather than becoming a universal claim."
},
{
"type": "note",
"title": "Review follows the claim",
"text": "A reviewer may accept one interpretation from a source while leaving another unresolved. A blanket “trusted source” label is too coarse to express the different grounds of individual claims."
},
{
"type": "links",
"items": [
{
"label": "MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0",
"href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22126086",
"detail": "The published semantic model."
}
]
}
],
"sources": [
{
"label": "MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0",
"href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22126086",
"detail": "The published semantic model."
}
]
},
"figures": {
"evidence": ""
}
}
}