...
Consider an incorrect PtoU template template asserting that a particular chair is an instance of Table. The error was in asserting this PtoU template, not in inserting it into the RTS. Thus, the error was made on the part of the entity designated by by iuia (in the PtoU template). Now either this entity (1) really believed that the chair was a table for some reason or (2) made a mistake in picking out a reference to the type type Chair (e.g., said "table" when she meant to say "chair" or selected "table" from the dropdown list when she meant to select "chair").
Now, if the entity correcting the error is the same entity as the the iuia of the template with the error, then there is the possibility of both change in belief (really believed it was a table when she made the PtoU assertion) and recognition of error (never believed it was a table but just picked the wrong reference somehow).
...
We cannot assume either. The remaining question is whether it is worth making the distinction? It would certainly be helpful in the grand scheme of things to capture both, so we could differentiate erroneous beliefs from errors in recording those beliefs, so that we could study them.
The allowed values for C are therefore the following:
| Parameter | Definition |
|---|---|
| CE | The change in the RTS occurred to reflect a change in reality. |
| CB | The change in the RTS occurred to reflect a change in belief. |
| CR | The change in the RTS occurred to reflect a change in relevance. |
| XR | The change in the RTS occurred to reflect a recognition of error. It is different from a change in belief, because the entity making the change never believed what the RTS said, but instead recognized that the statement in the RTS was wrong. It could be, for example, that s/he meant to select the universal Liver from a pick list, but accidentally picked Lung and only later after recording data in the RTS realized the mistake. |
Implications for Remainder of Metadata Template
...