It’s a bit Taliban, but I cannot disagree with Martin. Franco
Il giorno sab 5 ott 2019 alle 19:49 Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> ha scritto: > Dear Dan, All > > I do not understand what you mean by making your life "easy". The question > is, if the identity conditions of the classes you use are compatible with > the reality you describe, and not if some properties or labels appear > convenient. > > Nobody forces you to use the CRM. It is made for reliable information > integration. If you use it, better not abuse it;-). Franco has made good > arguments below, that E53 Place is not what you take it for, and that the > distinction of bona fide and fiat cannot be verified in relevant cases. If > you replace E53 by your understanding of a "Place", basically you abuse the > CRM. If scope notes are not well-written, please refer to them, but please > do not create your own;-). > > Having said that, we have the following: The Space-Time Volume takes its > identity from either coordinates or a phenomenon, including claims in terms > of coordinates, that stay within such, fuzzy in general, boundaries that > form "volumes". > > No "named place" exists forever, hence it changes in time. If I describe a > dinosaur bone found in Desert Gobi, there was no Desert Gobi at that time. > "E53 Place" is not a "place". E53 describes a geometric extent. Hence, it > is the projection of the (maximal or current) extent of the named > phenomenon. It is good practice to define an instance of E53 Place "Extent > of Desert Gobi in 2019". It is wrong to regard the Desert as an E53. > > It is explicit in the scope note of E4 Period: > > "A geopolitical unit as a specific case of an instance of E4 Period is the > set of activities and phenomena related to the claim of power, the > consequences of belonging to a jurisdictional area and an administrative > system that establishes a geopolitical unit. Examples from the modern > period are countries or administrative areas of countries such as districts > whose actions and structures define activities and phenomena in the area > that they intend to govern. The borders of geopolitical units are often > defined in contracts or treaties although they may deviate from the actual > practice. The spatiotemporal properties of Geopolitical units can be > modelled through the properties inherited from E92 Spacetime Volume." > > > All examples you gave of things with a political identity are instances of > E4 Period. Period;-). All "places" defined by boundaries of geological > features, such as islands, are Physical Features, typically E27 Site. Both > have spatial projections. > The island of Crete was not an island 5 million years ago (Mediterranean > dried out), and considerably larger in the last Ice Age. > They change as all physical things. > > Please read the scope notes. > > It is per definitionem wrong for all CRM concept to argue with the meaning > of the label. Labels can only be wrong wrt to the scope note. Per > definitionem they do not constitute definitions. It is wrong to argue that > Czechoslovakia is not a period. You may argue if Czechoslovakia as an E4, > or if "Period" is the best label for the scope not of E4. It is correct to > regard "Extent of Czechoslovakia 2000" as an instance of E53. > > These are foundational principles of the CRM, hence not debatable, because > changing them would create other "ontologies". > > We have discussed and published in CRM-SIG modelling principles, which are > under review. I kindly ask all of you that help us improving the CRM with > your vivid interest and valuable responses, to read those before entering > deeper philosophical discussions. We have put the principles now on a more > visible place: > > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/methodology-of-ontology-development > > Unfortunately, as I see now, this principle, we have presented hundreds of > times in meetings and tutorial, has not be formulated strong enough neither > in the above document nor the CRM text. > > What comes next in the Methodolgy is section 8.3, which is not further > elaborated. > > I therefore propose to add in the CRM, in the section Terminology, > definition of "Class", to add an adequate variant of > "It is per definitionem wrong for all CRM concept to argue with the > meaning of the label. Labels can only be wrong wrt to the scope note. Per > definitionem they do not constitute definitions." > > So, concluding, the solution is E4 or E27 for all those guys, life is > easier with the CRM ;-) > > I hope this makes things clearer:-) > > Please contradict me;-), if necessary, > > Martin > > > On 10/5/2019 8:40 AM, Franco Niccolucci wrote: > > Dear Dan, > > I am a bit scared by what you propose. Let me summarize your procedure. > > You have a bag of things: islands, settlements (by the way, what do you mean > by settlement?), territories. They all have the same nature, and have borders > separating them from the rest of the universe: some are bona fide, i.e. they > are borders permanently (or almost so) involving some discontinuity or > heterogeneity; others don’t, and they are called fiat borders. This > classification created by Smith and Varzi in a famous paper is independent > from time variability. > > For example, an island has bona fide borders, but they may abruptly change > due to natural phenomena, and Thira is a well-known example of this. A coast > may be eroded by waves, sometimes very slowly and sometimes in a way > perceptible by a human. A glacier is a bona fide object because its borders > are defined by the intrinsic difference between the ice and the terrain, but > it changes its shape in time, being larger in the winter compared to the > summer. > In the paper by Smith and Varzi introducing such concepts, the North Sea is > mentioned as a fiat object although it is reasonably stable in time; actually > all fiat objects tend to be variable in time due to their social/human > definition. > > Further, time independence is not the same as time absence: Place is a > concept based on time absence. To keep the integrity of your bag content, > Place should be a 4D cylinder not varying along the t-axis. According to the > current CRM definition, it is instead timeless. How would you manage the > above mentioned case of Thira? It starts existing as a Place, but after the > eruption it becomes a Space-Time Volume? > > Unfortunately I have no clean solution to offer. The only escape way I see > tonight is to illegally associate to every Place a Space-time volume, also > called Place, which has identical time sections to the Place at any time t, > from the Big Bang to the end of the universe we could say; but no CRM > property exists that allows associating the cross-section of a 4D Space-time > volume at a given time t0 to the corresponding 3D region, a Place. In other > words, Places would (always?) be projections (P161) of Space-time volumes; > when the latter does not change in time, i.e. it is a 4D cylinder, it is also > called a Place. > > This proviso makes your distinction not illogical any more, but just illegal; > which is a substantial step forward. > Then, variability in time is a matter of granularity, and may be well chosen > by you according to the scope and purpose of your modeling. > > I am sending you separately some considerations on Space-time volumes - which > are of course available to all the interested ones. A good read for the > weekend. > > Regards > > Franco > > > Prof. Franco Niccolucci > Director, VAST-LAB > PIN - U. of Florence > Scientific Coordinator > ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS > > Editor-in-Chief > ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) > Piazza Ciardi 25 > 59100 Prato, Italy > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Piazza+Ciardi+25%0D%0A59100+Prato,+Italy?entry=gmail&source=g> > > Il giorno 4 ott 2019, alle ore 21:46, Dan Matei <d...@cimec.ro> > <d...@cimec.ro> ha scritto: > > Hi friends, > > In my legacy data, beside precise geographical Places (polygons, lines, > points), of course I have > named territories. > > Well, all Places are time-dependent: they are all post Big-Bang :-) But in > order to simplify my > life, I am tempted to model as E53_Place the bona fide spatial objects: > > • the "history-independent" places (e.g. Island of Crete, North America) > • the settlements (yes, a brutal simplification as bona fide objects) > > and as E92_SpaceTime_Volume the fiat spatial objects: > > • the territories of (extended) administrative units (counties..., > countries, empires). > > A few territories are stable in space AND time, e.g. Czechoslovakia, almost > (1918-1993, with the > WW2 caesura), but others... Think of the Habsburg Empire. > > Of course, there are "special" cases of almost identity, as "Malta" (the > island) and the territory > of "the Republic of Malta" (1964-), but I could live with them :-) > > What do you think ? could that be a reasonable enough decision ? > > Dan > > _____________________________________________________________ > Dan Matei, bibliograf > Institutul Național al Patrimoniului, Secția Biblioteci Digitale > Piața Presei Libere nr. 1, 013701 București > tel. 0725 253 222, 021 317 90 72, fax: 021 317 90 > 64dan.ma...@patrimoniu.gov.ro; d...@cimec.ro > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing > listCrm-sig@ics.forth.grhttp://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing > listCrm-sig@ics.forth.grhttp://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 > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Plastira+100?entry=gmail&source=g>, > Vassilika Vouton, > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece > > Vox:+30(2810)391625 > Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr > 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 >
