SACM — Difference between properties and attributes fuzzy and unneccessary

The distinction between "property" and "attribute" is unclear and could be confusing; and it is unnecessary.

An EvidenceProperty is defined to be "fundamental" and different kinds of properties are variously defined to be “a physical characteristic” “common”, “a single characteristic of the exhibit ,“ “provenance and timing characteristics “… Attributes are presumably otherwise ­ not fundamental. For example, “EvaluationAttribute is an abstract class that represents certain characteristics of various evidence elements that were asserted during the course of evaluation.”

At one time, property was agreed to mean something inherent. “Fundamental” is even less clear than “inherent”.

For example, physical measurements are always (or almost always) not inherent and can vary because of conditions and measurement error. Weight is not inherent, and how meaningful would it be to say it is fundamental? Provenance and [e.g. creation. revision] timing characteristics are often questionable and are they “fundamental”. The body of the evidence does not generally change if they are changed.

The motivation for naming some things as a property and others as an attribute might on the surface appear to have some merit. In the end, however, this distinction turns out to be simply difficult and confusing. Any usefulness is questionable, and it is entirely unnecessary. It should be dropped and all such things called an “attribute”.

There is agreement to the suggested approach. Furthermore, this has been already
resolved to the extent possible through related issues 16730, 16731, 16740, 16705, where
most statement related to evidence are constructed using the elements that are subclasses
of EvidenceProperty, with the only exception of EvidenceAttribute. This element is
different, since it provides some measurable values related to the quality of the
evidentiary support rendered by a certain Exhibit. There is also a common superclass
called EvidenceAssertion. Editorial changes will further downplay the distinction
between the 'fundamental' and 'contestable' assertions related to evidence and evidentiary
support.
Disposition: Closed, no change