Model an instrument through change
An instrument can survive a rebuild while its configuration, location and documented behavior change. The MODAVIS ontology keeps these relationships explicit instead of assigning every statement to an undifferentiated object.
A hypothetical organ with two documented states
Consider an illustrative organ described in a construction account and a later restoration survey. The first source lists an original disposition; the second records replacement pipes, a new location and a modified action. This is a modeling example, not an additional historical instrument claim. Begin with a proposed instrument identity, then represent the states, configurations, components and events supported by the two accounts.
| Entity or relation | In the example | Why it stays distinct |
|---|---|---|
| Instrument identity | The organ whose continuity is being investigated. | Identity is not reducible to one name, location or surviving component. |
| State | The instrument as documented at a particular phase. | A later survey should not overwrite what an earlier account says. |
| Configuration | The components and their functional arrangement in that state. | A register or mechanism can change without every other claim changing. |
| Historical event | Construction, relocation, repair or alteration supported by evidence. | An event in the object’s history differs from a database import or editorial action. |
| Source fragment | The exact passage or survey record supporting a statement. | Two descriptions may disagree or concern different phases. |
| Assertion and applicability | A claim about a property, with its relevant state and scope. | A statement valid for one phase is not automatically valid throughout the instrument’s life. |
The distinction makes disagreement informative. “The organ has this action” may be consistent with another source if the sources concern different states. If they concern the same state, retain the conflict and its evidence. A move does not automatically establish a new instrument identity, while a shared name does not establish continuity. The interpretation needs documented reasoning.
Applicability answers a different question from provenance
Provenance describes how a record was produced: source, extraction, processing and review. Context describes when and where the assertion applies. A modern cataloguer may make a claim about an eighteenth-century configuration; the date of cataloguing and the historical scope are different coordinates. In the ontology network, absent assertion context means unknown applicability, not universal applicability.
The network also distinguishes physical instruments from playable virtual-instrument products, versions and packages. A VAO can represent evidence about the physical organ and support a digital experience without becoming identical to that organ. A software package update need not represent a historical change, and a historical-state hypothesis need not coincide with a software release boundary.
Cuntz · Worked example#
Which Cuntz are we describing?
A state describes an instrument at a particular phase; a configuration describes how its components are arranged and function together. Context limits where a statement applies.
Work through the example 3 STEPS
The thesis distinguishes the physical description of four registers and 180 pipes from an analyzed digital configuration with five register labels and 225 recordings. The published VAO also inventories 225 pipe entities.
Keep the descriptions attributed
Record the historical description, digital analysis configuration and published inventory with their respective sources. Their numbers concern different documented accounts.
Ask the state and counting question
Determine which phase, configuration and counting convention each account describes before comparing totals. A virtual register label is not by itself an additional original physical register.
Retain the unresolved mapping
The thesis identifies a missing mapping, particularly for Regal 8′. Keep that unresolved relation visible. A structured manifest records its inventory but does not independently settle the historical discrepancy.
BASIS FOR THIS EXAMPLE
- Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2 ↗
Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release.
- Dominik Ukolov · Musikinstrumente im virtuellen Raum (2026)
Submitted dissertation, 11 September 2026; §§8.2.2.1 and 8.4.1, printed pp. 264–265 and 275–276. The historical description and digital inventory require a resolved mapping; the manuscript is not redistributed here.
- MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0 ↗
Identity, state, configuration, evidence, assertions, context and provenance. Teaching examples explain its distinctions without inventing new normative properties.
This example does not assert that the organ underwent a particular rebuild or that an extra original register existed.
The useful distinction. A well-formed record can preserve disagreement accurately while the historical interpretation remains open.
Fourteen modules organize the distinctions
| Modules | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Core; Instrument; Organ | Common identities, agents and places; states, configurations and components; organ-specific specialization. |
| Evidence; Provenance; Assertion | Source snapshots and fragments; processing and editorial lineage; claims, conflicts, decisions and projections. |
| Events; Context | Historical occurrences and the applicability conditions of statements. |
| Media; Audio; MIDI | Representations and bitstreams; fixed signals and frame regions; optional protocol bindings. |
| Virtual Instrument; Heritage; Vocabulary | Playable product and package identities; knowledge and collection snapshots; reviewed SKOS concepts. |
Validate relationships without inventing missing history
The release uses OWL distinctions and SHACL constraints, including SHACL-SPARQL, to check the model’s intended boundaries. Its validation contract includes the necessary class-hierarchy snapshot; it is not a license to populate missing domain facts through unrestricted inference. A constraint can reveal an inconsistent identity assignment or missing required relation. It cannot supply the undocumented builder of an instrument.
Stable HTTP identifiers are the normative identity route. Legacy MODAVIS identifiers can be retained for reconciliation without being promoted to a persistent-identifier guarantee. The ontology network also keeps its import closure separate from downstream VAO mappings, which are owned by the VAO specification. This lets the domain model serve research beyond any one package format.
Cuntz · Worked example#
What can OWL and SHACL check about this organ?
OWL describes meanings and logical relationships between classes. SHACL checks whether a particular data graph satisfies specified constraints. Neither performs the historical investigation.
Work through the example 3 STEPS
Suppose an import mistakenly uses one identifier for both the physical Cuntz organ and its playable virtual-instrument package. This is an illustrative error, not a reported defect in the published release.
Explain the semantic distinction
The ontology treats the physical instrument and playable virtual entities as distinct kinds. An object and a package representing it must not collapse into one identity.
Check the supplied graph
A SHACL validation run checks the relevant shapes and expected data. It can report the mistaken identity assignment or a missing required relationship so the author can correct the record.
Return to source criticism
Passing those checks does not determine whether the fifth register label corresponds to an original register. That question needs an evidence mapping, not another shape check.
BASIS FOR THIS EXAMPLE
- MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0 ↗
Identity, state, configuration, evidence, assertions, context and provenance. Teaching examples explain its distinctions without inventing new normative properties.
- Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2 ↗
Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release.
The error is hypothetical. Validation outcomes depend on the declared ontology, shapes and validation setup; no new official MODAVIS constraint is introduced here.
The useful distinction. Validation checks the modeling contract; research establishes whether an interpretation is warranted.
Preserve a knowledge state as well as an object state
A historical state describes the instrument; a knowledge snapshot describes the research record at a given publication point. Those are independent. New evidence can revise a claim about an old state. The ontology’s snapshot approach makes membership and graph identity explicit, with canonical graph hashing metadata kept outside the hashed content. This helps a reader recover what a release asserted without pretending that its interpretations are final.
Sources & further reading
- MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0
Release README, fourteen module descriptions and SHACL validation contract.
- Dominik Ukolov · Musikinstrumente im virtuellen Raum (2026)
Dissertation submitted to Universität Leipzig, 11 September 2026. §§3.2.4–3.2.7; §§4.4.3–4.6 on identity, sources and non-destructive integration. Page numbers refer to the printed manuscript pagination. The manuscript is not distributed by this website.
Page editions 2026-09-r5 ↓
Read a fixed snapshot of this chapter, or return to the current notebook.
Edition 2026-09-r5 · SHA-256
73fd01266beePage metadata ↗