---
# System prepended metadata

title: Meeting Notes - 22.07.2022

---

# Meeting Notes - 22.07.2022

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

## Discussions

Suggestions for improvements and notifications from Saulius:

- Have URLs on hand for the ontologies (to import in Protégé).
- URLs for the CIF-ontology documentation: [emmo-repo.github.io/CIF-ontology](https://emmo-repo.github.io/CIF-ontology).

---

The Task Group should focus on developing the EMMO domain ontology for crystallography, generating concepts that can be mapped to the CIF (Core) ontology.

---

We should go the "weak/soft commit" route, discussing models, adding it the "Data" perspective in EMMO.
Saulius: The issue with models is that they are opinionated; they all have some concepts that are taken as fact for a basis. They may also have built-in bias.

Question (James): How far do we go in stating that even such a thing as a "Crystal" is a true de facto physical object or is it in and of itself also a "model"?

Weak/soft commit: Using the "Data" EMMO perspective. A researcher/person can use a concept from this perspective to describe their real world object, softly committing to they hypothesis that their real world object can be described by this concept/model.

Hard commit: Using the "Physicalistic" EMMO perspective. A researcher/person uses a concept from this perspective to describe their real world object, essentially stating that it is _by definition_ this concept (e.g., a "Crystal"). There can be _no counter argument_ done.

Part conclusion: We should use only (for now) the "Data" perspective to discuss models.

For models we should relate it closely with the "Symbolic" perspective (maths); symmetry descriptions, Laue equations, etc.

---

When describing models, we should include notions of their conceptual limits.

---

It would be nice if the ontology could tell us whether two models relate to the same material and if it makes sense that these two models relate to the same material/sample.

---

Concepts to put into ontology:

**Physicalistic**:

- **Batch**
  Sample of samples?
  Homogenous ...
  A collection(?)/set(?) of **samples** produced by the same **process**.
  A uniform body of a **material**, prepared/produced by the same **process**.
  
  There can be several batches of the same **material**.
  
  A batch is produced of a _single run_ of a specific **process**.
  
  It is expected that experiments performed on samples from the same batch will be similar.

- **Sample**
  Fully used in an experiment.
  Sample only makes sense in the context of an experiment.

Material -> Batch -> Sample

**Data**:

---

Crystal: A **material**, which can be described by a **crystallographic model**.
