Ethan, Could you do :
?monogram a E33_Linguistic_Object ; crm:P106_is_composed_of ?character . ?character a E33_Linguistic_Object ; crm:P190_has_symbolic_content “☧” . ? That would avoid the punning that the chi-rho is both an E33 and a literal at the same time. Rob From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Ethan Gruber <ewg4x...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 9:59 AM Cc: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] A symbol made of symbols I have a followup question to the use of crm:P165i_is_incorporated_in. We have implemented this property to link a Monogram to a representative, idealized SVG URI. In a very narrow subset of cases (maybe only one that I know of so far), a monogram is notable enough to have warranted entry into Unicode, the chi-rho Christogram: ☧ We have a need to define URIs for these Christograms so that we can exploit the constituent letters via P106_is_composed_of in SPARQL. We have at least a few examples of Monograms that consist of both Latin letters and a Christogram, e.g., ?monogram crm:P106_is_composed_of+ "Ρ" #Greek rho So I just want to confirm that a single Unicode character itself is an E73 Information Object, even if this is an unusual implementation. ?monogram crm:P165i_is_incorporated_in "☧" Ethan On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:15 AM Ethan Gruber <ewg4x...@gmail.com<mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi George, I think this makes a lot of sense. I can use the D1 Digital Object, and this is pretty useful for us as I would like to be able to associate the SVG with the person who created it or other processes of production (derived from a font file, e.g.). I've forwarded to the Nomisma list and hopefully we'll agree and start publishing our monograms online soon. Thanks, Ethan On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:28 AM George Bruseker <george.bruse...@gmail.com<mailto:george.bruse...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Ethan, Here is my take. I have a large number (thousands) of monograms that appear on Greek coinage. There is an SVG file that represents an idealized form of the monogram. The Nomisma ontology has a nmo:Monogram class, and I am attempting to link Nomisma more directly as subclasses or subproperties to CIDOC-CRM ones. A monogram fits the definition of a subclass of crm:E37_Mark: "This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing by arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, etc." Yes, it seems the right match. In this sense, if I want to link a monogram to its constituent letters, is P106_is_composed_of the appropriate property for this? For example, I have a URI for a monogram, http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbol/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3 Therefore: <http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbol/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3> a nmo:Monogram ; crm:P106_is_composed_of "T" ; crm:P106_is_composed_of "H" . This also seems the right match. If you are not concerned about the particular form of the letters, then I guess you could make the letters instances of E90 Symbolic Object. etc. The next question I have is how do I link this concept of a monogram to one or more SVG files that represent this monogram? There could be variant images based on individual styles of die-carvers, but scholars agree these variations represent the same semantic concept. I am looking at the documentation for P138 represents, and I am having a difficult time understanding the distinction between the examples where a digital file (PLY 3D model or a JPEG image) is the E36 Visual Item, but in other documentation the E36 Visual Item seems more conceptual. If a Visual Item is definitionally an E1 CRM Entity, then a Visual Item can still represent another Visual Item, correct? So: <http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbol/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3> a nmo:Monogram ; crm:P106_is_composed_of "T" ; crm:P106_is_composed_of "H" ; crm:P138i_has_representation <http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbols/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3> #svg file url For the question of relating the instance of Mark (the monograms) to the SVG, I would do this otherwise. I would take advantage of D1 Digital Object class for the instances of SVG and their characteristics. [if you won’t like extensions, then E73 information object] I would then link the instances of D1 to the individual marks through the p165<http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/P165-incorporates/Version-6.2.1> incorporation property which allows one information object to incorporate another. For the question of relating one instance of Mark (such that that is uniquely identifiable from another but which is nevertheless a variant of the same Mark), you could make use of the p130<http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/P130-shows-features-of/Version-6.2.1> property ’shows features of’. It has a property on property that allows you to specify the kind of similarity. I attach an example of the proposed solution as a diagram. I guess the one part of your problem that it does not address is the ur-imageness of the one idealization. I guess the ur type did not historically exist but is the composite based on scholarly research. Therefore it sounds like creation of a type, see E83<http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Entity/E83-Type-Creation/Version-6.2.1> Perhaps this is a picture for a type? Or you could make one instance of Mark which is the ur instance and say that all the other instance are related to it in particular as variant, but that doesn’t seem correct at first thought. Best, George [cid:16e4b932ae91cc3c9f51] Thanks, Ethan _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content is safe.
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
