Keep the claim and its grounds together
An accepted fact can be useful without making its supporting evidence disappear.
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.
Time and context are not optional decoration
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.
Validate the model, review the interpretation
OWL distinctions and SHACL constraints help catch incompatible identities and malformed data. They complement, rather than replace, source criticism and organological judgement.
A source, a fragment and an assertion
| Record | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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. |
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.
Retain conflict as information
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 Rejecting an interpretation should not make the original source vanish, and superseded decisions should remain distinguishable from currently accepted ones.
Context is different from provenance
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.
Sources & further reading
- MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0
The published semantic model.
Page editions 2026-09-r3 ↓
Read a fixed snapshot of this chapter, or return to the current notebook.
28daed062074Page metadata ↗