and you may have noticed that I did not vote - I just wanted to stimulate reflection, and I will not bore you anymore. I will reply Martin directly.
Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus Technology Director 4CH Editor-in-Chief ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 23 mar 2021, alle ore 19:50, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig > <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> ha scritto: > > Dear Martin, Christian-Emil, all, > > In order not to block a development that seems to be largely consensual, and > considering that my veto apparently violates the SIG rules, I withdraw it and > simply vote NO. > > If the majority thinks that the problem I have pointed to is not a problem > and that the inconsistency between previous versions of the CRM and the new > one in relation to the substance of this class is not an issue, especially > with respect to monotonicity, I personnally have nothing to add. > > With all my best wishes > > Francesco > > > > Le 23.03.21 à 19:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit : >> Dear Francesco, >> >> Your concerns well respected, please let me explain a few things: >> >> Firstly, this e-vote is not about the reduction of the range of P39 from E1 >> CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. >> >> The reduction was decided in the last CRM-SIG with good majority after >> considering all pros and cons. >> >> Following our rules, a decision once made by the CRM-SIG can only be undone >> by raising a new issue, providing new additional arguments. >> >> Therefore, the use of the VETO right should not be used to undo an orderly >> decision taken by the SIG. >> >> Nevertheless, let me >> >> On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, and >>> more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class without >>> changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the nominal >>> monetary value of a collection of coins" is now excluded. >>> >> Firstly, >>> >>> >>> So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the surface >>> of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place for >>> representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot be >>> measured ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check : "E54 Dimensions are >>> associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension. So not every >>> class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70. >>> However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM >>> Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a >>> dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent >>> that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be measured. >>> I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to resolve >>> this inconsistency." >>> >>> Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical things >>> is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an abstraction >>> from observable things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such >>> evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 >>> Measurement." >>> >>> after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the >>> issue) we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite >>> different substance than the long period one. >>> >>> Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract. >>> >>> >>> >>> My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is Attribute >>> Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I partly agree but it >>> seems to me that, given the radical change of substance, the consistency of >>> the information produced before version 7.??? will be lost. >>> >>> >>> >>> So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new substance, >>> restricted in the mentioned sense, and deprecate E16 if wished but leaving >>> it as is for the sake of consistency of legacy information and monotonicity >>> ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Given these arguments, I vote: >>> >>> VETO. >>> >>> >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Francesco >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------ >> 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, 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 > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
