Dear Franco,
I agree in all points and with your later messages, only, I would not
talk about a sample when the material stays in situ. I'd just describe
it with another class, and exclude this sense from the definition. I'd
say we measure properties in some area of the object, because the
further history is that of the whole object. The "sample area" is not
particularly protected. Therefore I do not see an individuality to the
sampling area.
The splitting is interesting, because then we have a unit of matter that
makes its own history, but the "sampleness" goes back to the initial
removal. Since this is frequent practice, we need to think about the
identity and unity criteria. Probably we need a transitive property of
its own. If we have a bore core, we can split it along the drilling
direction. If it is liquid or powder, direction doesn't matter.
Any good idea?
All the best,
Martin
On 4/10/2018 8:38 PM, 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
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
