LillyG901
LillyG901
Alright, i will change the labels of the instances of `nature of uncertainty` to `ambigous uncertainty`, `epistomological uncertainty` and `ontological uncertainty`. I'll also add `role` to `location of uncertainty`.
I also checked the oeo and did find `input data` and `output data`. I will delete my own versions. I could not find any implementation of `conceptual model` or `model...
Should I also add new issues for the terms I could not find yet?
If these terms are to be defined separately, we are mainly missing the relations between model and the aspects of uncertainty. `has quality` is already pre-established. Should we use this...
The issues for the other terms are #1951, #1952, #1953 and #1954.
I would define the relations as follows: subclasses of `has quality` `has uncertainty nature` - _A relation between a `model`(x) and a `nature of uncertainty`(y) that indicates uncertainty within x...
When adding the relations, should I also define the inverse of each of them?
Should `uncertainty` be related to location/nature/level somehow? It should currently be possible for a `model` to have an `uncertainty level` without having an `uncertainty`. If `uncertainty` was defined as an...
Alright I added the relations with the improved definitons
I think we should link `uncertainty` and nature/level/location. If we don't relate them in any way it would be pretty hard to distinguish between two different kinds of `uncertainty`. Because...