Tje scope note of Mark says "This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing". According to my (fragementary) knowledge of English "applied" in this context will also cover a text being a part of the glazing of a ceramic. If we by mark restrict the class to physical changes in the overall surface like a relief, it should be stated. Also is a mark made by a stamp on wet clay before it is baked, a mark or just a part of the overall form? What is human made besides the carved monograms on an originally smooth surface (https://lokalhistoriewiki.no/wiki/Fil:Monogrammer_Oscar_II_Vilhelm_II_ved_Holmenkollveien.jpg)?
My point is not to start an endless debate about details, we need good operational definitions of the three concepts: Linguistic Object, Inscription and Mark. Is a company logo applied to a paper by pen and ink a mark? Is a greeting on the first blank page of a book given as a gift a mark? Is a stamped signature in the glazing on a Japanese vase a mark? Does the thing it is applied to need to be a Human Made thing (e.g. a rune on base rock)? Most curators will include quite long CVs written on Roman tombstones in the collection of Latin inscriptions. The Gortyn law text is by most considered to be an inscription According to OED a greeting on the first blank page of a book given as a gift is an inscription (here I mix up language and formal definition). I think the current definitions of the three classes are ok (with the removal of "short") The class E37 Mark need to be so general that all texts that are considered (by the cultural heritage sector) to be inscriptions are instances of E37 Mark. Mark: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or texts applied to instances of E18 Physical Thing by arbitrary techniques, for example to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, but also texts found on grave monuments. Best, Christian-Emil ________________________________ From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Ethan Gruber <ewg4x...@gmail.com> Sent: 20 January 2020 00:31 To: Robert Sanderson Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark A short text on a physical object is always an inscription. Whether or not it's a mark (according to the current definition in the ontology) probably depends on a greater level of specialized knowledge. On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:04 PM Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu<mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote: From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s on a physical object … how can I know when that should be a Mark+Linguistic Object, or when it is an Inscription? Rob From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> Date: Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark I understand the following: This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that are not inscriptions. This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are also Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other Linguistic Objects among the Marks. It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor make such statements in the CRM. I also do not see a particular utility in this statement. All other rules A-D provided by Robert appear to be correct. Best, Martin On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object | / E34 Inscription E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects The sentence is difficult to understand. I try. Pr defintion: All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions are (instances of E33) Linguistic Objects. The only difference between E34 Inscription and E37 Mark is that E34 is a restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are instances of E33 Lingustic Object that is has a language. Most sequences of letters and signs do not have a language. C-E From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr><mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr><mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> Sent: 18 January 2020 13:59 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be regarded Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, translation etc. No need to make them linguistic objects. Best, Martin On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote: Dear all, Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be solved by double instantiation? All the best, Øyvind Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber <ewg4x...@gmail.com<mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>: I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks. I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin correspond to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic objects that carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark. Ethan On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu<mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote: I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re discussing: * A) All Marks are Symbolic Objects * B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects * C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects * D) All Inscriptions are Marks * E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are accurate. For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus either the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be clearer about the nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a subclass of Mark. For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the Mark class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as short text implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think that the scope note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this issue. Marks should be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there is a linguistic interpretation of the content, then they should instead be Inscriptions. Hope that clarifies! Rob From: Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM To: Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu<mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>>, crm-sig <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark Dear Robert, Yes, that is a good question! For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM. Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a Linguistic Object, then it is in particular an Inscription. But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions. However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not separated out as complement, because following all the discussions we had in the past, there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished from inscriptions. So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider sense, which are not the codified monograms etc. isn't it? best, martin On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: Dear all, I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose also that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short texts” in a class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It seems strange to me that Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when that is clearly text with a language. That would, IMO, need to be E37 Inscription if we wanted to talk about the content / meaning, rather than just the visual appearance of some symbols. Yet the scope note for Mark makes assertions about the intent, which implies a semantic understanding of the language encoded by the symbols. Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc. Either the “etc” covers all intents (at which point it is a worthless clause) or there are some texts that are inscribed on objects that do not count as inscriptions. One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” … that does not seem to fall under the definition of Mark, given the intent clause. Similarly the “Keep off the grass” sign example is to instruct the students of Balliol to not walk on the lawn. That seems very different from a Mark … yet it is one? Finally, I think there is a minor typo in the new sentence. I think it should read: … as they are used to codify the marks in reference documents … (or something like that) Many thanks, Rob From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr><mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr><mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM To: crm-sig <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr><mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark Dear All, There were questions about the level of abstraction of E37 Mark. Therefore I rewrite, following the relevant discussions when this class was defined. The argument was that it should directly link to the codes that are used in museum documentation for (registered) marks. Old scope note: Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, etc. This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be documented as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature. NEW Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, etc. Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the actual image of a mark, but the abstract ideal, as they use to be codified in reference documents that are used in cultural documentation. This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be documented as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature. Can someone provide a relevant example from an authority document of marks? Such as Castagno, John. Old Masters: Signatures and Monograms, 1400–Born 1800. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996. Caplan, H. H. and Bob Creps. Encyclopedia of Artists' Signatures, Symbols & Monograms: Old Masters to Modern, North American & European plus More; 25,000 Examples. Land O'Lakes, FL: Dealer's Choice Books, 1999. -- ------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Doerr Honorary Head of the Center for Cultural Informatics Information Systems Laboratory Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece Vox:+30(2810)391625 Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl 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. -- ------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Doerr Honorary Head of the Center for Cultural Informatics Information Systems Laboratory Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece Vox:+30(2810)391625 Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl 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<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- ------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Doerr Honorary Head of the Center for Cultural Informatics Information Systems Laboratory Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece Vox:+30(2810)391625 Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- ------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Doerr Honorary Head of the Center for Cultural Informatics Information Systems Laboratory Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece Vox:+30(2810)391625 Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl 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<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
