Dear all,
It turns out that we might also need to worry about P110. The HW for
both is included here to discuss and vote at the next SIG:
1) Change the range of P112 diminished:
From:
E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
To:
E18 Physical Thing
And update the property scope note from:
“This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal. Although an
instance of E80 Part removal activity normally concerns only one
instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing, it is possible to imagine
circumstances under which more than one item might be diminished by a
single instance of E80 Part Removal activity.”
to:
“This property identifies the instance E18 Physical Thing that was
diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal. Although an instance of
E80 Part removal activity normally concerns only one instance of E18
Physical Thing, it is possible to imagine circumstances under which more
than one item might be diminished by a single instance of E80 Part
Removal activity.”
2) Update property under the scope note of E80 Part Remove
From:
P112 diminished (was diminished by): E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
To:
P112 diminished (was diminished by): E18 Physical Thing
3) Example for E80 diminishing a natural object
the removal of the Porite coral specimen from the Cocos Islands by
Charles Darwin in April 1836
4) Example for P112 diminished
The coral of the Cocos Islands (E20) was diminished byThe removal of the
Porite coral specimen by Charles Darwin (E80).
Refs: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/e1bfb1ab-e94e-4e0a-a13c-bc54e03f22e5
<https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/e1bfb1ab-e94e-4e0a-a13c-bc54e03f22e5>https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html
<https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html>
Extra HW for P110:
1) Change the range of P110 augmented:
From:
E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
To:
E18 Physical Thing
And update the property scope note from:
“This property identifies the instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
that is added to (augmented) in an instance of E79 Part Addition.
Although an instance of E79 Part Addition event normally concerns only
one instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing, it is possible to imagine
circumstances under which more than one item might be added to
(augmented). For example, the artist Jackson Pollock trailing paint onto
multiple canvasses.”
To:
“This property identifies the instance of E18 Physical Thing that is
added to (augmented) in an instance of E79 Part Addition.
Although an instance of E79 Part Addition event normally concerns only
one instance of E18 Thing, it is possible to imagine circumstances under
which more than one item might be added to (augmented). For example, the
artist Jackson Pollock trailing paint onto multiple canvasses.”
2) Update Class E79 Part Addition:
Reference to property P110:
From
P110 augmented (was augmented by): E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
To
P110 augmented (was augmented by): E18 Physical Thing
Scope note update:
From:
“This class comprises activities that result in an instance of E24
Physical Human-Made Thing being increased, enlarged or augmented by the
addition of a part.”
To:
“This class comprises activities that result in an instance of E18
Physical Thing being increased, enlarged or augmented by the addition of
a part.”
3) Example for E79 augmenting a natural object:
the carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph on the Culpa tree (Buhrich et al.,
2015)
4) Example for P110:
The carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph (E79) augmentedthe Culpa tree
(E20). (Buhrich et al., 2015)
Ref: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03122417.2015.11682048
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03122417.2015.11682048>
Looking forward to comments and the discussion.
All the best,
Thanasis
On 13/12/2021 09:58, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
In which case I suppose the proposal to discuss at the next SIG is:
1) change the range of P112 from E24 Physical Human-Made Thing to E18
Physical Thing
2) fix the reference to the property under the scope note of E80
3) add an example to E80 and a corresponding example to P112 for
non-man-made things.
Could we assign a new issue number to this?
All the best,
Thanasis
On 05/12/2021 19:44, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear All,
Actually the class was also designed for cutting parts from
archaeological objects, natural history stuff etc. We had a long
discussion if, in the very instant, a part is broken from a natural
object, e.g. for sampling, the diminished becomes "human made". We
later ultimately decided that this violates identity criteria of
classes. It just leaves a human-made feature on a natural object.
Therefore, we need to revise wherever this logic had been applied
before.
Best,
Martin
On 11/30/2021 11:25 PM, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:
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.
--
------------------------------------
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
