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
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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 64
dan.ma...@patrimoniu.gov.ro <mailto:dan.ma...@patrimoniu.gov.ro>;d...@cimec.ro
<mailto:d...@cimec.ro>
_______________________________________________
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 <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 <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
