# Meeting Notes - 14.10.2022 **Participants**: - [x] Casper Welzel Andersen - [x] Rickard Armiento - [ ] Francesca Lønstad Bleken - [ ] Matthias Büschelberger - [ ] Stuart Chalk - [ ] Kathrin Frei - [x] Jesper Friis (after ~1 h) - [x] Emanuele Ghedini - [ ] Luca Ghiringhelli - [ ] Gerhard Goldbeck - [ ] Saulius Grazulis - [x] James Hester - [ ] Antanas Vaitkus - [ ] Nathan Daelman - [x] Francesco Antonio Zaccarini ## New concept addition templates James has pushed onwards with the homework template presented previously by Emanuele on how to think about adding new ontological concepts. James' idea is to create a GitHub issue's template that matches the template by Emanuele. An excellent idea. To follow up on this, the team members are encouraged to continue this work on GitHub: [emmo-repo/domain-crystallography#4](https://github.com/emmo-repo/domain-crystallography/issues/4). ## Ontological compromization Rickard: From a talk by Giovanni Pizzi, it was mentioned that an experiment _can_ affect and change the sample, leading to it effectively being a _different_ sample used for subsequent experiments. The ontological issues could be "solved" by claiming the semantical individuals are models of the sample, not representing the sample itself. "model" is a bad/confusing word to describe anything ontologically in general. --- Disjoint PeriodicCrystal and APeriodicCrystal? A long discussion ensued, where Emanuele presented several different representations the `Crystal` concept children `PeriodicCrystal` and `APeriodicCrystal` could take. Eventually, we have reached the agreement that: - They should **not** be disjoint concepts. - The ontology offers an analysis/interpretation-oriented knowledge base, which puts the main semantics in the semiotic branch, i.e., "what properties do the analysis show a sample to have within some uncertainty". - This means a `sample` individual, representing a sample in the same space and time dimension interval, can be classified as being both `PeriodicCrystal` and `APeriodicCrystal`, through the effect of two different analyses/interprations of the _same_ experiment coming to different conclusions about the `Periodicity` concept (which is itself a `Property` concept). - That a sample is not necessarily both periodic and aperiodic at the same time **but** has never-the-less been _interpreted_ to be both at the same time.