---
# System prepended metadata

title: Meeting Notes - 08.07.2022

---

# Meeting Notes - 08.07.2022

**Participants**:
- [X] Casper Welzel Andersen
- [x] Rickard Armiento
- [ ] Francesca Lønstad Bleken
- [X] Matthias Büschelberger
- [x] Stuart Chalk
- [ ] Kathrin Frei
- [ ] Jesper Friis
- [X] Emanuele Ghedini
- [x] Luca Ghiringhelli
- [ ] Gerhard Goldbeck
- [X] Saulius Grazulis
- [X] James Hester
- [ ] ~~Joana Francisco Morgado~~ (will not return, for now)
- [X] Antanas Vaitkus
- [X] Nathan Daelman

## Recap

Recapping where the task group work is at.

Restarting meetings Fridays bi-weekly from 13:30-15:00 (CEST) (1:30-3:00 PM).

Emanuele is showing us around the [CIF-ontology](https://github.com/emmo-repo/CIF-ontology) repository.
Specifically, the top ontology here: `cif_ddl.ttl`.

He outlines also the way in which the crystallography domain ontology will be included in the EMMO.
Namely, it will be incorporating the CIF-ontology into the EMMO via more "generic" crystallography ontological concepts.

## EMMO-Crystallography domain ontology

Under the "Data" perspective, "Crystallographical" will be a "Language".
Under this, "CIF" is defined.

Under the "Physicalistic" perspective, "CrystallineMaterial" is defined as a "Material".

We're defining "Crystal" also as a subclass of the "Solid" "StateOfMatter".

In the latest meetings we were discussing what other kind of "StateOfMatter" could be used, or where else the top-crystallography definitions might fit into the EMMO.
This is an important aspect to get started.

### Ontology incorporation

Emanuele outlines the Discipline Level and Domain Level differences in the EMMO.
The intention being that the general concepts agreed to be used within the discipline should be included within the EMMO Middle Level Ontologies (MLO), meaning it will be generally accessible when importing the EMMO.

The CIF-ontology will always only be part of the Domain Level.
Possibly as a "mapped" ontology.

### Next steps

Emanuele suggests to consider a sample, or real material, for determining which concepts should be added.
This is kind of what was the central subject about where to place "Crystal" as well.

## Discussion

The difference between perspectives in the EMMO is important.

For example, if "Poly-crystalline" is defined under the physicalistic perspective, it will open the door for a "hard commit" to stating a measured sample _is_ a poly-crystalline material. There is no room for "lies".
However, if the concept is put under the data perspective, one can instead state that a data set from an experiment performed on the sample determines the sample to be poly-crystalline.
This is a more "weak commit", which allows for the _actual_ sample being a "Material" or "Crystal", while different experiments on the same sample can come to different solutions.
This will allow the ontology to properly represent "science".

---

We should focus on the data perspective and figure out data/model concepts to describe the real world/physicalistic perspective.

---

**Next meeting**: 22nd of July 2022, 1:30-3:00 PM (CEST)
