---
# System prepended metadata

title: Meeting Notes - 14.09.2023

---

# Meeting Notes - 14.09.2023

**Participants**:
- [x] Casper Welzel Andersen
- [x] Rickard Armiento
- [x] Francesca Lønstad Bleken
- [ ] Matthias Büschelberger
- [ ] Stuart Chalk
- [ ] Kathrin Frei
- [ ] Jesper Friis
- [x] Emanuele Ghedini
- [ ] Luca Ghiringhelli
- [ ] Gerhard Goldbeck
- [x] Saulius Grazulis
- [x] James Hester
- [ ] Antanas Vaitkus
- [ ] Nathan Daelman
- [ ] Ilaria Maria Paponetti
- [x] Oskar Andersson

## Extending last meeting's discussions

The discussion of [last meeting's](https://hackmd.io/MrYB3H-MSMCe0FQav1o5sA?view) "choice" between different approaches of describing crystallographic "models" was expanded upon, now with the inputs of Emanuele.

It seems (to me) that there is a misunderstanding of what a "structure" is and what crystallographers define as a "model" - both philosophically, but also in terms of how we use it.
At the same time there is a misunderstanding of how this should be introduced into EMMO in a way that will satisfy everyone, while keeping it "useful", i.e., meeting the _needs_ we as crystallographers have of the ontology.

### Use case creation

I suggest to create a couple of simple use cases to understand how we (the crystallographic community) intend to utilize the ontology.
Further, I suggest to start creating a purely taxonomical and mereological (parthood) graph of the concepts constituting a structure (model).

The point of creating this graph is so that when the how-to's of tying these concepts into the perspectives of EMMO, we are already 80-90 % done.
