Ahh, thank you, I understand now. Well, the scope notes of the various classes and properties should be improved to make that clear if it's the case. And then we would need to have the discussion about how to remove fragments from meteorites, so I hope that's _not_ the case :D
R On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:59 PM Athanasios Velios <thana...@softicon.co.uk> wrote: > I completely understand the reasoning and I agree that intuitively a > tree with a broken branch is a diminished thing. It is just that the > scope note and all of the examples in E80 Part Removal are for > Human-Made things so I worry that the class has been designed for > Human-Made things only, i.e. breaking off the original branch may not be > E80. Part Addition and Part Removal are designed to allow us to track > the use of a component integrated intentionally in multiple objects over > its history, so it may be that a thing needs to be added before it can > be removed. If we care about the tree prior to cutting the branch then > it may be only a modification. Am I taking it too far? > > Having said that, pushing the property higher in the hierarchy, although > I am told we should avoid it in general, in this case it may not cause > too many problems. > > T. > > P.S. Amazingly, the inconsistency between the scope note and property > range existed since version 3.4. > > On 30/11/2021 14:00, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > > > It makes sense for the twig from the branch, but not from the branch > > from the tree (or stalactite from the cave, fragment for study from a > > meteorite, etc etc). > > Removing the branch/fragment from the tree/meteorite results in a > > Human-Made Object (via the Part Removal / Production), but the > > tree/meteroite that is P112 diminished by the activity does not become a > > Physical Human-Made Thing in the process. It stays an E20 Biological > > Object/E19 Physical Object, just a smaller one. > > > > R > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:45 AM Athanasios Velios > > <thana...@softicon.co.uk <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>> wrote: > > > > Hm, I do not consider it as a value statement, but as indication of > the > > intension. Breaking a tree branch which is worth putting in your > > collection is a production of a Human-Made Object (as well as a > > Biological Object). So when you break the twig off the branch, you > are > > removing a part from a Human-Made thing. In other words you cannot > > remove a part unless it is included intentionally on the original > thing > > in the first place. Does this make sense? > > > > T. > > > > > > On 29/11/2021 19:57, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > > > > > Isn't "diminished" just a label, rather than a value statement? I > > don't > > > think something needs to be complete for a part to be removed (I > can > > > break a twig off the branch, which I previously broke off the > > tree). I > > > read it as "was made smaller by" in that some part was removed. > > > I agree that Part Removal is not always a Production -- the same > > part > > > could be added and removed several times, and clearly not all of > > them > > > are Productions. [Personally, I would never say it was a > > Production, but > > > that a Production might have a Part Removal as a part of it] > > > > > > Here's a related question... Can an E78 Curated Holding have a > > Physical > > > Feature as part of it? Conceptually, yes ... but E78 is a physical > > > aggregate, not a conceptual thing. Does the collections system of > > Arches > > > National Park have records for the rock formations? Surely it > > must. And > > > if the National Park boundaries were changed, then the arched rock > > > formations that no longer fell within the protected area would > > have to > > > be removed from the E78. So I think I even retract "you can't > remove > > > features" given the physicality of E78. > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:05 PM Athanasios Velios > > > <thana...@softicon.co.uk <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk> > > <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>>> > > wrote: > > > > > > Yes this is a logical position. I guess the way I have been > > reading it > > > is that the object that is diminished was indeed > > intentionally made > > > by a > > > human and therefore it *can* be diminished. If it is any > > thing then who > > > judges if it is complete and has been diminished? There is no > > agency on > > > its original "production". > > > > > > The reason we have E18 as range is because the removed item's > > identity > > > is not that of a human made object. I.e. Part removal is not a > > > Production which I think is the reason the following sentence > > is in the > > > scope note: > > > > > > "In cases where the part removed has no discernible identity > > prior to > > > its removal but does have an identity subsequent to its > > removal, the > > > activity should be modelled as both an instance of E80 Part > > Removal and > > > E12 Production." > > > > > > hence the removed part is pushed up to E18. > > > > > > T. > > > > > > > > > On 29/11/2021 16:36, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > > > > > > > Good spotting! I agree with Thanasis that there is any > > issue, but I > > > > think that the range is wrong for P112, which I would argue > > > should also > > > > be E18. > > > > > > > > For example, I find a tree and break off a branch. The > > tree is not a > > > > Human-Made Thing, it's an E20 Biological Object. Or I > break a > > > piece of > > > > obsidian (I would argue an E19) into two. Or if the > > obsidian is > > > part of > > > > a lava flow, then it would be a physical feature ... and > > thus we > > > end up > > > > at E18 as the common ancestor. > > > > > > > > I think that E18 remains correct for P113, given the > described > > > use of > > > > removal of a part from an E78 Curated Holding. If I remove > a > > > meteorite > > > > fragment from the collection of a natural history museum, > the > > > meteorite > > > > is (again, I would argue) an E19. Now ... can it ever be > > an E18 > > > Physical > > > > Thing but not an E19 Physical Object? It can't be a > > Feature, as they > > > > cannot be removed, ruling out E26 and below. However E78 > > is an E24 > > > > Physical Human-Made Thing, but not an E19 Physical > > Object. If we > > > use > > > > E78 to model sub-collections, and sub-collections can be > > removed > > > from > > > > their parent, then yes, here is a case where we need E18. > > > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Athanasios Velios via > Crm-sig > > > > <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > > <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> > > > <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > > <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue > to > > > update the > > > > scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it > > seems that > > > E80 Part > > > > Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a > > stalactite off > > > in a cave. > > > > > > > > Thanasis > > > > > > > > On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I am hoping you might be able to help me with a > small > > > confusion - > > > > > > > > > > The scope note for E80_Part_Removal > > > > > > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1>> > > > > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1>>>> > states > > > > > that "This class comprises the activities that > > result in an > > > > instance of > > > > > E18 Physical Thing being decreased by the removal > > of a part." > > > > This reads > > > > > to me as if the relationship would then go: E80 > > > > P112_diminished > > > > > E18, > > > > > as P112 creates the connection to the thing being > > > diminished (having > > > > > something removed from it), as opposed to > P113_removed, > > > which is > > > > for the > > > > > connection to the thing that was removed. > > > > > However, the range of P112 is E24, not E18, and the > > scope > > > note for > > > > > P112_diminished > > > > > > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1>> > > > > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1 > >>>> reads > > > > > "This property identifies the instance E24 Physical > > > Human-Made Thing > > > > > that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part > > Removal." > > > > > Meanwhile, the range of P113_removed > > > > > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1>> > > > > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1>>>> is > > E18, as > > > > > is the range of P31_has_modified > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121> <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121>> > > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121>>>>, the > > > > > superproperty of P112. > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me therefore that either I am reading > the > > > scope note > > > > > incorrectly (very possible!) or that there is an > > inconsistency > > > > between > > > > > the two, perhaps in the range of P112? > > > > > > > > > > I looked in the Issues history for anything about > > this, and > > > > wonder if > > > > > the discussion around the change of P31 (Issue 191 > > > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31>> > > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31>>>>) might have > > > > relevance > > > > > to either the range or language around it, as in > > that case the > > > > range of > > > > > P31 was relaxed from E24 to E18. Although, that > being > > > said, this > > > > > perceived E18/E24 inconsistency as described above > > exists > > > as far > > > > back as > > > > > v4.0 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80>> > > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80> > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80>>>>, the > earliest > > > > > version available on the website, so perhaps it is > my > > > reading of the > > > > > scope note that is backwards... > > > > > > > > > > To summarize, my question is - Which is the correct > > range of > > > > P112: E18 > > > > > as stated in the E80 scope note or E24 as stated in > > the P112 > > > > scope note > > > > > and range; or am I reading this set of > > notes/relationships > > > > incorrectly? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your guidance on this, > > > > > Erin Canning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Crm-sig mailing list > > > > > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > > <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> > > > <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > > <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>> > > > > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>> > > > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>>> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Crm-sig mailing list > > > > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > > <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> > > > <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > > <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>> > > > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>> > > > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Rob Sanderson > > > > Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata > > > > Yale University > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Rob Sanderson > > > Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata > > > Yale University > > > > > > > > -- > > Rob Sanderson > > Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata > > Yale University > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
