I broadly agree with the points made in the discussion:
1) If interventive conservation work changes the identity of an object
then it has failed. If anything, conservation work should maintain the
identity of the object.
2) Destructive testing in conservation requires a sample.
Non-destructive testing, such as taking a photo under UV or IR light,
does not require a sample. I think S13 has to be defined as "taken/removed".
All the best,
Thanasis
On 10/04/18 18:38, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with Martin that the current scope note is formally correct: "no
stability of form required", means that form may need to remain stable
or it is not relevant for the experiment.
The reason is that for a sample the identity criteria may not concern
the form, and possibly they also may not concern volume, weight, colour,
etc. A sample is characterized by some property which enables the
experimenter to consider the sample as representative of something else,
usually (but not necessarily) a larger thing.
So it is not strange at all that in some cases one may split a sample
into two (or more) smaller parts, each one still being a (the?) sample;
in other cases this is impossible. “Splittable” samples are chosen
because they represent some characteristic of the Amount of Matter from
which they are *selected* for which the volume is not relevant.
For example, to analyze a large quantity of water one may take one dl
(0.1 l). But also dividing that sample into 10 parts, the 1 cc (0.01 l)
sample(s) is still the (same) sample. One might think to indefinitely
continue the splitting process (if they have nothing better to do) as
long as the chemical properties remain the same. But, when ideally the
splitting arrives to the molecule level, further splitting must stop or
the sample is lost. So indefinite sample “splittability” is not an
absolute property even for those “splittable” samples, but may need to
stop at some point, where further splitting the sample does not produce
additional samples, it simply destroys it.
I would say that what counts for being a sample is how you regard it:
the nose of Michelangelo's David may be a sample of the marble, or
simply be a detached piece of the statue which one may consider from an
artistic perceptive as an individual cultural object. In either case,
please do not remove it from the statue.
There are actually cases in which the identity characteristics of the
sample do not require physically removing it from the object it is part
of. Here are some techniques that do not require physical sample detachment
- photography (visible light, UV, IR)
- radiography
- ecography
- tomography
- XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence)
- multispectral analysis
- colorimetry
- infrared reflectography
This is why some time ago I argued against the use of the verb “remove”
or “take" in the S13 scope note. In the above cases, no removing is
required, and that’s why restorers prefer such techniques to those
requiring destruction of a (small) piece of the artefact. I would better
use “select” as quick-and-dirty solution.
Exercise: define the identity criteri for the above technologies and
check if the sample is splittable, and if so where splitting must stop
before destroying the sample.
Best
Franco
By the way, the S11 scope note text is a bit cryptic: "with the
intention to be representative for some material qualities of the
instance of S10 Material Substantial or part of it was taken from for
further analysis"
there should at least be a comma after “of” and “from” (or the sentence
should be rephrased), and why “further" analysis?
Maybe: "with the intention to be representative for some material
qualities of the instance of S10 Material Substantial or part of it,
from which it was taken for analysis"
F.
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
Il giorno 10 apr 2018, alle ore 15:05, Martin Doerr
<mar...@ics.forth.gr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> ha scritto:
Dear All,
By the way, an interesting aspect of samples is that they can be split
without loosing their identity. Obviously, there is
some complexity in the object-ness of the sample versus its substance.
Tracing split samples is a practical issue in labs.
Any thoughts?
Best,
martin
On 4/10/2018 1:16 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear Martijn,
A better formulation is always welcome!
Logically, it is correct: "no stability of form is required" does NOT
exclude stability of form. I give explicitly the example "the
sequence of layers of a bore core". The point is, that we take a
sample for a particular feature it will be a witness for. The
identity of the sample and its duration of existence as a sample
depends on the kind of feature that needs to be preserved, be it a
stratigraphy, a chemical composition or whatever. Consequently, it
can be diminished quite substanstially without loosing this identity,
whereas other impacts may not change its discreteness as a
stable piece of matter, but destroy the relevant composition.
Proposals welcome.
Best,
Martin
On 4/9/2018 11:15 PM, P.M. van Leusen wrote:
"no stability of form is required" would exclude some types of
samples, e.g. kubiena tin samples taken for microstratigraphy,
palynology, or paleomagnetism. I would advise excising this phrase.
Martijn
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 21:19 Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr
<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
Dear All,
Here my proposal for a better scope note:
S11 Amount of Matter[1]
Subclass of: S10 Material Substantial
Superclass of: S12 Amount of Fluid
S13 Sample
Scope note: This class comprises fixed amounts of matter
specified as some air, some water, some soil, etc., defined by the
total and integrity of their material content. In order to be able
to identify and recognize in practice one instance of S11 Amount of
Matter, some sort of confinement is needed that serves as
a constraint for the enclosed matter and the integrity of the
content, such as a bottle. In contrast to instances of E18 Physical
Thing, no stability of form is required. The content may be put into
another bottle without loosing its identity. Subclasses may define
very different identity conditions for the integrity of
the content, such as chemical composition, or the sequence of layers
of a bore core. Whereas an instance of E18 Physical Thing may
gradually change form and chemical composition preserving its
identity, such as living beings, an instance of S11 Amount of Matter
may loose its identifying features by such processes.
What matters for the identity of an instance of S1 Amount of Matter
is the preservation of a relevant composition from the initial state
of definition on.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:
mar...@ics.forth.gr
|
|
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 |
|
Web-site:
http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:
mar...@ics.forth.gr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
|
|
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 |
|
Web-site:
http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:
mar...@ics.forth.gr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
|
|
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 |
|
Web-site:
http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may
contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based upon them and
you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and
immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where this email is
unrelated to the business of University of the Arts London or of any of its
group companies the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and
do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the
relevant group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the email
is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also applies: UAL
Short Courses Limited is a company registered in England and Wales under
company number 02361261. Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272
High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY
