[newTerm] Data

Description:

• data is currently only a plural of datum.
• We should consider creating it as its own class so that it has reasoning power in the ontology, or making the exception for this "practical mass noun" to be a label (which are usually singualr).

---

Here we want to collect pro vs con of using "datum" vs "data" label in order to reach a decision and document the thought process.

PRO DATUM

• datum is the correct singular form of data. Using datum would conform to the practice of having lables as singulars
• we have already had data as the primary label in the past and spent a lot of time to change this to datum which, to me, indicates that datum is probably good enough and we can publish our ontology earlier if we postpone this discussion until after the release (see also #46 (comment 5571040))

PRO DATA

• data is the colloquially and widely used form for plural and singular
• data is currently not part of the hierarchy - by re-labeling it would become a "visible" and "reasonable" part of the onotlogy (e.g. when writing a SPARQL request, one would likely expect to find the class data in this ontology)
• using datum creates a number of sub-classes with akward labels (i.e. metadatum instead of metadata) - this will also require other classes to be adjusted (i.e. medatadum record validation instead of metadata record validation)

---

Status:

• class has been created
• current definition A sign which has been encoded using multiple datum instances.

---

Postpone the issue until after 1.0 release? (yes/no)

• Said: no
• Christine: yes
• Leon: yes
• Volker: no
• Gerrit: [@gerrit]
• Laxmi: no

decision is not to postpone

added from #33 (closed):

data:

• here we should also discuss the difference /commonality of datum and data - it is somewhat unintuitive to have them in parallel while in other cases we have singular & plural defined in one class#
• make the comments more accessible; note the wording the def of encoding process which mentions that the encoded form of something should be sendable from a sender to a receiver. Therefore, e.g. something stored in a brain is not encoded because it cannot be sent to someone else. It first has to be encoded via e.g. language.
• comment on possible colloquial uses: We recognize that "data" may also be understood as more or less anything which we can perceive. However, we have decided for another colloquial use which understands data as only encoded things.
• add gloss