rename information content entity to information artifact

[zhengj2007]

From mcour...@gmail.com on June 15, 2009 18:02:01

Following OBI meeting

It has been agreed on renaming information content entity into information artifact. If needed, please object before the 24th of June.

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=21

[zhengj2007]

From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on July 07, 2009 09:07:23

Ron R: Artifact exists in the IAO as a subtype of Independent Continuant, changing the name of information content entities to "Information Artifact" may well add confusion over what are instances of information content entities. Unless this change of name signals a re- classification of information content entites as being a subtype of Artifact (the intended output of an objective driven process) I think the name change should be reconsidered. http://groups.google.com/group/information-ontology/msg/6f76c1a6888e71d2

[zhengj2007]

From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on July 07, 2009 10:08:02

The stated motivation for making this change is:

We are trying to delineate what is in scope and not in scope for this ontology. An example that has been given (although for which there is NOT consensus about its status) is that there are no information content entities(in our sense) involved in bee dance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waggle_dance ).

It is argued that by using the term "Artifact" in the name this issue of scope will be settled.

Alan (at least) disagrees that changing the name will do anything, and that the real issue is that we need to have a principled way of delineating the scope, and then document it.

---

It should be noted that "artifact" is no longer in IAO - it has been obsoleted, so that Ron R's comment, at least, is no longer relevant.

[zhengj2007]

From mcour...@gmail.com on October 15, 2009 14:25:12

While it doesn't imply a reclassification, I think that the goal of clarifying the scope of IAO is important enough to warrant action. (artifact as been deprecated in the meanwhile so there wouldn't be an issue there)

As far as I can tell, Alan isn't convinced by the name change, but he doesn't object either :)

Proposal is therefore as follow:

• update the name from information content entity to information artifact (DL October 31st)
• work on articulating scope in a more explicit way and document it (Alan to initiate)

Comments welcome.

Melanie

[zhengj2007]

From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on October 15, 2009 14:28:22

In case it isn't obvious, I object to the name change.

[zhengj2007]

From mcour...@gmail.com on October 15, 2009 15:23:29

current definition reads:"an information content entity is an entity that is generically dependent on some artifact and stands in relation of aboutness to some entity", so not very helpful to decide one way or an other.

Proposal 2: work on definition in order to help delineate scope (which is the objective of the name change) and choose appropriate label once done and based upon that definition.

Cc: alanruttenberg

[zhengj2007]

From michel.dumontier on October 15, 2009 15:28:05

please, please work on the definition...