Hi To get some intuiton here: I workde with a database for a limnological collection of water samples from Norwegian streams. The water samples are store in small sample tubes. The form of the tube is not of interest. The sample is messured in milliliters. Does such a sample have a stable form? If the sample is frozen (in a an elastic tube),is it the same sample?
Best, Christian-Emil ________________________________________ From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Athanasios Velios <a.vel...@arts.ac.uk> Sent: 11 April 2018 10:15 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11 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 _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
