Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Florian, All,

It is not clear to me why people do not want to use E18 for Aggregates 
that are not intended to grow over time in the sense of a collection. 
The time, how long they are together, does not play a role. The question 
is only, if they are well defined and identified for some time.


For biodiversity scenaria, we have used a concept of Temporary Aggregate 
which exists only within an Activity, such as a catch of plankton and 
counting the species in it.


Since the CRM does not model subclasses without distinct properties, the 
Auction Lot is an E18, and you are free to introduce your own subclass 
for it.


Making E78 any aggregate, we come in conflicts separating it from E18. 
NOTE, that an E18 does not require physical coherence, such as sets of 
chessmen etc. We would then have competing models, if the distinction 
cannot be made clearly.


We have discussed repeatedly, that a useful distinction of 
"non-aggregates" from "aggregates" cannot be made.


Opinions?

Best,

Martin

On 10/21/2019 1:43 PM, Florian Kräutli wrote:

Dear George,

This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note 
of E78 suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there 
is no satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections 
you describe.


However, instead of introducing another class and then having to come 
up with criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' I 
would rather extend the examples under E78 to include other types of 
aggregates.


Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for 
auction lots, as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated 
Holding. The term in the scope note that might stand in the way is 
that the aggregation is said to be assembled "according to a 
particular *collection development plan*". An auction lot is not 
generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but it 
is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that term 
is necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as a 
Collection.


Best,

Florian

On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker > wrote:


Dear all,

At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting 
to model information related to auctions. It happens that during 
auctions, lots (collections or sets of things) are created with the 
intention that things will be sold together. Ie they are aggregates. 
In facing the question of modelling this, we seem to have some options.


1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to 
hold these things together for a day or so and to sell them together


2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended 
modelling aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts.


The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes against 
the intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one 
instantiating a physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for 
E78) for an aggregate that will possibly only ever be together once. 
In fact, since the objects are only put together in the lot for the 
intention of sale, they may not have had to have been physically 
brought together as a physical item ever. In this sense modelling 
them with either E78 or E19 seems to break ontological commitment (ie 
we do not think that these things were ever brought together or 
treated physically as one).


Because Linked.art also has members in the group who represent modern 
art museums, the discussion also comes upon the possibility that 
included in the lot of things sold may be some sort of intellectual 
thing, no physical object at all. Obviously because of its nature, we 
could not bundle a conceptual object with a physical object using 
physical mereology relations. So... modelling difficulty ahoy!


Could we take up this discussion during SIG (or if there is already a 
satisfactory solution overlooked can it be referred to)?


To me it seems to raise the question of the possibility of defining a 
conceptual object class for 'set', although I am sure this will open 
up a large discussion!


Look forward to see you all soon!

Best,

George

ref: https://github.com/linked-art/linked.art/issues/281


___
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



--

 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

[Robert Sanderson]

Dear all,

There were three issues that came up with E78 … the scope note being, I think, 
the least concern.


  1.  The scope note is very specific that the collection is assembled, 
maintained, curated, preserved over time for a specific purpose and audience 
according to some plan, and that “collective objects” such as a tomb of gifts 
or a folder of stamps, should instead be E19. An auction lot is not maintained 
or preserved over time.  The semantics could be weakened to allow for “sets of 
physical objects that are collected for some purpose” (or similar) but then 
there are the following two concerns …
  2.  What is the End of Existence / Destruction of an E78?  For example, when 
an auction lot is sold there is still a reference to it in the auction catalog, 
but the physicality of the aggregation is potentially ended. If an art dealer 
buys the lot, then they’re very unlikely to sell the objects together or even 
record that it was a lot. But there’s no Destruction event, as each of the 
members remains untouched. The scoping decision documented in E6 would suggest 
that the E78 is transformed (as the matter is preserved but the identity is 
lost) … but E81 is documented as being the simultaneous Destruction and 
Production that preserves the substance with a different nature of identity. 
The member objects are not modified or destroyed in any way.
  3.  (2b) Similarly, even if all of the members are destroyed, the auction lot 
persists as an entity of discourse. We can talk about the auction lot that 
collected two paintings that were then destroyed completely by fire. This makes 
it, in my view, a Conceptual Object.
  4.  E78 can only include physical things, yet there are frequently auctions 
(or other groupings) that include both physical things and non-physical, such 
as the right to perform a particular piece of art or theatre. This also impacts 
the ongoing rights discussion (how to do you acquire the right to perform?), 
but the inclusion in the auction lot is mostly orthogonal to this.

Thus the set of objects seems conceptual, not physical … meaning something like 
a Set class that has members, rather than a Physical class that has parts. This 
could also be appropriate as a super-class for Group, I think, in that we can 
talk about a set of people that is not an Actor – this would solve the gender 
issue, as there is a set of all persons that identify as female, without 
implying a Group that is necessarily able of taking coherent action.

Rob

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Florian Kräutli 

Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 3:46 AM
To: George Bruseker 
Cc: crm-sig 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

Dear George,

This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note of E78 
suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there is no 
satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections you describe.

However, instead of introducing another class and then having to come up with 
criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' I would rather extend 
the examples under E78 to include other types of aggregates.

Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for auction lots, 
as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated Holding. The term in the 
scope note that might stand in the way is that the aggregation is said to be 
assembled "according to a particular collection development plan". An auction 
lot is not generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but 
it is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that term is 
necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as a Collection.

Best,

Florian


On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker 
mailto:george.bruse...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear all,

At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting to model 
information related to auctions. It happens that during auctions, lots 
(collections or sets of things) are created with the intention that things will 
be sold together. Ie they are aggregates. In facing the question of modelling 
this, we seem to have some options.

1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to hold these 
things together for a day or so and to sell them together

2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended modelling 
aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts.

The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes against the 
intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one instantiating a 
physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for E78) for an aggregate that 
will possibly only ever be together once. In fact, since the objects are only 
put together in the lot for the intention of sale, they may not have had to 
have been physically brought together as a physical item ever. In this sense 
modelling them with either E78 or E19 seems to break ontological commitment (ie 
we do not 

[Crm-sig] HW of ISSUE 357

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

​Dear all

Here is the homework of ISSUE .

Best,

Christian-Emil



The number of shortcuts has changed due to  deprecation of properties and a few 
new. The eventual change of E4 isa E92 to a property etc, will result in 4 new 
shortcuts marked as red text below. One existing shortcut has to be redefined, 
marked in read as well.


In the long discussion of formalizing shortcuts in FOL, the two terms  strong 
shortcut and weak shortcut were introduce. A shortcut is weak when the 
existence of a long path implies an instance of the shortcut. In a graph the 
instantiation of  the long path should automatically introduce a triple for the 
shortcut. It should be noted that there can be more than one instantiation of a 
long path.


A strong shortcut is a weak shortcut where the instantiation of the shortcut 
implies the existence of a long path.  As long as the long path need not to be 
unique, I think this is ok in FOL. However, this may contradict the open world 
view ad also the timelessness of some properties like P1, P2. To make things 
simple I have defined all shortcuts as weak shortcuts. That is, the long path 
implies the short.


I have removed the “declaration” of class for intermediate nodes in the path 
where these are implied from the propertydefintion:


P105(x,y) ⊂ [E30(z) ˄ P104(x,z) ˄ P75(y,z)] becomes P105(x,y) ⊂ [P104(x,z) ˄ 
P75(y,z)]

since P104(x,z) ⊃ E30(z) and also P75(y,z) ⊃ E30(z).


The CRMbase document has no FOL description of the shortcuts. In 2015 when we 
started this work the intension was to add a line to those properties that are 
shortcuts, e.g.


In First Order Logic:

   P105(x,y) ⊃ E72(x)

   P105(x,y) ⊃ E39(y)

Shortcut: P105(x,y) ⊂ [ P104(x,z) ˄ P75(y,z)]



To add this is pure editorial work, the sig should just decide yes or no.








1.   P1 is identified by (identifies), is a shortcut for the path from ‘E1 
CRM Entity’ through ‘P140i was attributed by’, ‘E15 Identifier Assignment’, 
‘P37 assigned’,‘E42 Identifier’, ‘P139 has alternative form’ to ‘E41 
Appellation’.

P1(x,y) ⊂ [P140(z.x) ˄ P141(z,y)]



2.   P2: Type assignment events allow a more detailed path from ‘E1 CRM 
Entity’ through ‘P41i was classified by’, ‘E17 Type Assignment’, ‘P42 
assigned’, to ‘E55 Type’ for assigning types to objects compared to the 
shortcut offered by P2 has type (is type of).

P2(x,y) ⊂ )[ P41(z.x) ˄ P42(z,y)]



3.   [P7 took place at (witnessed)] It is a shortcut of the more fully 
developed path from E4 Period through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, 
P89 falls within  to E53 Place. E4 Period is a subclass of E92 Spacetime 
Volume. By the definition of P161 has spatial projection an instance of E4 
Period takes place on all its spatial projections, that is, instances of E53 
Place. Something happening at a given place can also be considered to happen at 
a larger place containing the first. For example, the assault on the Bastille 
July 14th 1789 took place in the area covered by Paris in 1789 but also in the 
area covered by France in 1789.

P7(x,y) ⊂ [E4(x)  ˄ P161(x,z) ˄ P89(z,y)]

P7(x,y) ⊂ [Pyyy(x,w) ˄ P161(w,z) ˄ P89(z,y)]



4.   P8 took place on or within (witnessed) is a shortcut of the more fully 
developed path from ‘E4 Period’ through ‘P7 took place at’, ‘E53 Place’, ‘P156i 
is occupied by’, to ‘E18 Physical Thing’

P8(x,y) ⊂ [P7(x,z) ˄ P156(y,z)]



5.   [P9 consists of (forms part of)] This property associates an instance 
of E4 Period with another instance of E4 Period that is defined by a subset of 
the phenomena that define the former. Therefore the spacetime volume of the 
latter must fall within the spacetime volume of the former.P9 consists of 
(forms part of) shortcut of long path via E92 STV

P9(x,y) ⊂ [Pyyy(x,z) ˄  P132(z,w) ˄ Pyyy(y,w) ]



6.   P43: It is a shortcut of the more fully developed path from ‘E70 
Thing’ through ‘P39 measured’, ‘E16 Measurement’, ‘P40 observed dimension’, to 
‘E54 Dimension’. It offers no information about how and when an E54 Dimension 
was established, nor by whom.

P43(x,y) ⊂ [P39(z,x) ˄ P40(z,y)]



7.   P44: It is a shortcut of the more fully developed path from ‘E18 
Physical Thing’ through ‘P34 concerned’, ‘E14 Condition Assessment’, ‘P35 has 
identified’, to ‘E3 Condition State’. It offers no information about how and 
when the E3 Condition State was established, nor by whom.

P44(x,y) ⊂ [P34(z,x) ˄ P35(z,y)]



8.   P46 is composed of (forms part of) shortcut via E92 Spacetime Volume

P46(x,y) ⊂ [E92(z) ˄ P92(w) ˄ Pxxx(x,z) ˄  P132(z,w) ˄ Pxxx(y,w)]





9.   P49 has former or current keeper (is former or current keeper of) is a 
shortcut for the more detailed path from ‘E18 Physical Thing’ through ‘P30 
transferred custody of’, ‘E10 Transfer of Custody’, ‘P28 custody surrendered 
by’ or ‘P29 custody received by’ to ‘ E39 Actor’.

P49(x,y) ⊂ [P30(z,x) ˄ [P28(z,y) ˅ P29(z,y) ]]



10.   P50 has current 

Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear George,

This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note of E78 
suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there is no 
satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections you describe.

However, instead of introducing another class and then having to come up with 
criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' I would rather extend 
the examples under E78 to include other types of aggregates.

Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for auction lots, 
as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated Holding. The term in the 
scope note that might stand in the way is that the aggregation is said to be 
assembled "according to a particular collection development plan". An auction 
lot is not generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but 
it is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that term is 
necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as a Collection.

Best,

Florian 

> On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting to model 
> information related to auctions. It happens that during auctions, lots 
> (collections or sets of things) are created with the intention that things 
> will be sold together. Ie they are aggregates. In facing the question of 
> modelling this, we seem to have some options.
> 
> 1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to hold 
> these things together for a day or so and to sell them together
> 
> 2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended modelling 
> aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts. 
> 
> The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes against the 
> intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one instantiating a 
> physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for E78) for an aggregate 
> that will possibly only ever be together once. In fact, since the objects are 
> only put together in the lot for the intention of sale, they may not have had 
> to have been physically brought together as a physical item ever. In this 
> sense modelling them with either E78 or E19 seems to break ontological 
> commitment (ie we do not think that these things were ever brought together 
> or treated physically as one).
> 
> Because Linked.art also has members in the group who represent modern art 
> museums, the discussion also comes upon the possibility that included in the 
> lot of things sold may be some sort of intellectual thing, no physical object 
> at all. Obviously because of its nature, we could not bundle a conceptual 
> object with a physical object using physical mereology relations. So... 
> modelling difficulty ahoy!
> 
> Could we take up this discussion during SIG (or if there is already a 
> satisfactory solution overlooked can it be referred to)? 
> 
> To me it seems to raise the question of the possibility of defining a 
> conceptual object class for 'set', although I am sure this will open up a 
> large discussion!
> 
> Look forward to see you all soon!
> 
> Best,
> 
> George
> 
> ref: https://github.com/linked-art/linked.art/issues/281 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig