Re: [Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRM issue

[martin]

Hi Martin,

Indeed the intention is to cover parts regardless spatial or temporal 
order, because
in general they cannot be distinguished. Even "mainly temporal parts", 
such as a period following another, spreads out over space. 
Consequently, for some time, both coexist at
different places. This is why we are now introducing true spacetime 
volumes into the CRM.

They are more realistic.

If we feel this should be clearer in the scope note and examples, that 
could resolve the issue?


On 13/5/2014 12:14 μμ, Martin Scholz wrote:

Hi,

the discussion so far is only concerned about part-whole in time. E3 
and E4, however, both also extend in space -- but they use different 
CRM classes:
an E3 Condition State is limited to an E18 Physical Thing, an E4 
Period is limited to an E53 Place. E2, however, is only located in 
time, not in space.

Exactly, this is why my opinion is they cannot be mixed.

Best,

Martin


The scope notes of P5 and P9 do not explicitly address the spatial 
aspect. The examples are only about temporal parts.


I could think of spatial parts like
- period Renaissance has parts Italian/... Renaissance or
- the condition state of an ensemble being in ruins but with its parts 
having different states of decay or even being intact.


So my question is whether P5 and P9 are intended to only cover 
temporal or also spatial part-whole-relations.


Regards
Martin Scholz


Am 13.05.2014 09:58, schrieb martin:

Dear Simon,

I have the impression that you take the density of time, to which CRM 
commits,

for the decomposition of phenomena happening in time, which is E2,
the nature of E2 is not the nature of time however.

Further, you seem to talk about the question if there are minimal 
elements, that
cannot be subdivided further. For time, the CRM does not assume that, 
as you
argue. Currently, the CRM assumes only for Actor minimal elements of 
decomposition.


The first question is rather, if there are phenomena in time that 
reveal a

structure with distinct recognizable identities that have a part-whole
relationship, such as "Early Minoan" and "Middle Minoan". They are 
identified

by observable characteristics, not by subdivision on the time-line.

The second question is, if these part-whole relationships can be 
mixed between
subcategories: Can a natural part of a Condition State be an Event, 
or can a E4
Period ever have a part which is a Condition State? If not, then a 
common
property would produce "non-intended models" as Nicola Guarino 
describes it.

This cannot always be avoided, but we try to minimalize this effect.

Finally, CRM properties are optional, so there is no commitment given 
by the
definition of a part-of property, that all instances of that class 
must have
parts. Indeed, for material objects, we may end up with nuclear 
particles as end
points, but those are out of scope, but long before, the notion of a 
Physical

Object would loose its meaning.

If there is a characteristic class in scope which forms the minimal 
elements,
then we would model the decomposition down to this class, as in the 
case of

Actor and Person.

The question if the labels of these part-of relations should be 
different is
interesting. So far we have prefered that they have all the same 
name, because
that renders the meaning clearly, but different P-number, which 
renders the
constraint. To include the class name in the label may be another 
method to
render the constraint, but it produces long names difficult for 
translation, and
is counterintuitive when used with subclasses, such as an Event 
consisting of

several Periods, or a Period consisting of Events, which is intended.

Comments?

Martin

On 13/5/2014 12:51 ??, Simon Spero wrote:

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Stead mailto:ste...@paveprime.com>> wrote:

The question is not could we generalise the property to E2 but are
there potential instances of E2 that are not E3's or E4's that
potentially do not have decomposition. I do not know and
additionally I am not sure I want to
spend a lot of time making sure that by their very nature all E2's
are decomposable!!


This actually a rather significant ontological decision.
If there are temporal entities that cannot be so divided then the 
underlying

temporal ontology is /discrete. /
If every temporal entity can always be so decomposed, then the 
underlying

temporal ontology is /dense/.

CRM is committed to a dense ontology (because of the approximate 
model of time
points, and the rejection of any momentary events*) , so it would 
seem all E2

must be decomposable.

It is of course, not the case that the type of every part is the 
same as the
type of the whole; conversely, there may be certain granularities 
where each
part /is/ of the same type - e.g. the granularity of a step, each 
part of a

walk is also a walk.

Simon
* e.g. "the upward velocity of the ball I just tossed becoming zero" 
is not

considered to be momentary, in spite of calculus, because the precise
beginning

Re: [Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRM issue

[Martin Scholz]

Hi,

the discussion so far is only concerned about part-whole in time. E3 and E4, 
however, both also extend in space -- but they use different CRM classes:
an E3 Condition State is limited to an E18 Physical Thing, an E4 Period is 
limited to an E53 Place. E2, however, is only located in time, not in space.


The scope notes of P5 and P9 do not explicitly address the spatial aspect. The 
examples are only about temporal parts.


I could think of spatial parts like
- period Renaissance has parts Italian/... Renaissance or
- the condition state of an ensemble being in ruins but with its parts having 
different states of decay or even being intact.


So my question is whether P5 and P9 are intended to only cover temporal or also 
spatial part-whole-relations.


Regards
Martin Scholz


Am 13.05.2014 09:58, schrieb martin:

Dear Simon,

I have the impression that you take the density of time, to which CRM commits,
for the decomposition of phenomena happening in time, which is E2,
the nature of E2 is not the nature of time however.

Further, you seem to talk about the question if there are minimal elements, that
cannot be subdivided further. For time, the CRM does not assume that, as you
argue. Currently, the CRM assumes only for Actor minimal elements of 
decomposition.

The first question is rather, if there are phenomena in time that reveal a
structure with distinct recognizable identities that have a part-whole
relationship, such as "Early Minoan" and "Middle Minoan".  They are identified
by observable characteristics, not by subdivision on the time-line.

The second question is, if these part-whole relationships can be mixed between
subcategories: Can a natural part of a Condition State be an Event, or can a E4
Period ever have a part which is a Condition State? If not, then a common
property would produce "non-intended models" as Nicola Guarino describes it.
This cannot always be avoided, but we try to minimalize this effect.

Finally, CRM properties are optional, so there is no commitment given by the
definition of a part-of property, that all instances of that class must have
parts. Indeed, for material objects, we may end up with nuclear particles as end
points, but those are out of scope, but long before, the notion of a Physical
Object would loose its meaning.

If there is a characteristic class in scope which forms the minimal elements,
then we would model the decomposition down to this class, as in the case of
Actor and Person.

The question if the labels of these part-of relations should be different is
interesting. So far we have prefered that they have all the same name, because
that renders the meaning clearly, but different P-number, which renders the
constraint. To include the class name in the label may be another method to
render the constraint, but it produces long names difficult for translation, and
is counterintuitive when used with subclasses, such as an Event consisting of
several Periods, or a Period consisting of Events, which is intended.

Comments?

Martin

On 13/5/2014 12:51 ??, Simon Spero wrote:

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Stead mailto:ste...@paveprime.com>> wrote:

The question is not could we generalise the property to E2 but are
there potential instances of E2 that are not E3's or E4's that
potentially do not have decomposition. I do not know and
additionally I am not sure I want to
spend a lot of time making sure that by their very nature all E2's
are decomposable!!


This actually a rather significant ontological decision.
If there are temporal entities that cannot be so divided then the underlying
temporal ontology is /discrete. /
If every temporal entity  can always be so decomposed, then the underlying
temporal ontology is /dense/.

CRM is committed to a dense ontology (because of the approximate model of time
points, and the rejection of any momentary events*) , so it would seem all E2
must be decomposable.

It is of course, not the case that the type of every part is the same as the
type of the whole; conversely, there may be certain granularities where each
part /is/ of the same type - e.g. the granularity of a step, each part of a
walk is also a walk.

Simon
* e.g. "the upward velocity of the ball I just tossed becoming zero" is not
considered to be momentary, in spite of calculus, because the precise
beginning and end points are cannot be defined as equal, just not
distinguishable.



___
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




--
Martin Scholz, Diplom-Informatiker
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Department Informatik
AG Digital Humanities
Konrad-Zuse-Str. 3-5
91052 Erlangen
Tel: +49 9131 85 29094
Fax: +49 9131 85 28781
Mail: martin.scholz at cs.fau.de

Re: [Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRM issue

[martin]

Dear Simon,

I have the impression that you take the density of time, to which CRM 
commits, for the decomposition of phenomena happening in time, which is E2,

the nature of E2 is not the nature of time however.

Further, you seem to talk about the question if there are minimal 
elements, that cannot be subdivided further. For time, the CRM does not 
assume that, as you argue. Currently, the CRM assumes only for Actor 
minimal elements of decomposition.


The first question is rather, if there are phenomena in time that reveal 
a structure with distinct recognizable identities that have a part-whole 
relationship, such as "Early Minoan" and "Middle Minoan".  They are 
identified by observable characteristics, not by subdivision on the 
time-line.


The second question is, if these part-whole relationships can be mixed 
between subcategories: Can a natural part of a Condition State be an 
Event, or can a E4 Period ever have a part which is a Condition State? 
If not, then a common property would produce "non-intended models" as 
Nicola Guarino describes it. This cannot always be avoided, but we try 
to minimalize this effect.


Finally, CRM properties are optional, so there is no commitment given by 
the definition of a part-of property, that all instances of that class 
must have parts. Indeed, for material objects, we may end up with 
nuclear particles as end points, but those are out of scope, but long 
before, the notion of a Physical Object would loose its meaning.


If there is a characteristic class in scope which forms the minimal 
elements, then we would model the decomposition down to this class, as 
in the case of Actor and Person.


The question if the labels of these part-of relations should be 
different is interesting. So far we have prefered that they have all the 
same name, because that renders the meaning clearly, but different 
P-number, which renders the constraint. To include the class name in the 
label may be another method to render the constraint, but it produces 
long names difficult for translation, and is counterintuitive when used 
with subclasses, such as an Event consisting of several Periods, or a 
Period consisting of Events, which is intended.


Comments?

Martin

On 13/5/2014 12:51 ??, Simon Spero wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Stead > wrote:


The question is not could we generalise the property to E2 but are
there potential instances of E2 that are not E3's or E4's that
potentially do not have decomposition. I do not know and
additionally I am not sure I want to
spend a lot of time making sure that by their very nature all E2's
are decomposable!!


This actually a rather significant ontological decision.
If there are temporal entities that cannot be so divided then the 
underlying temporal ontology is /discrete. /
If every temporal entity  can always be so decomposed, then the 
underlying temporal ontology is /dense/.


CRM is committed to a dense ontology (because of the approximate model 
of time points, and the rejection of any momentary events*) , so it 
would seem all E2 must be decomposable.


It is of course, not the case that the type of every part is the same 
as the type of the whole; conversely, there may be certain 
granularities where each part /is/ of the same type - e.g. the 
granularity of a step, each part of a walk is also a walk.


Simon
* e.g. "the upward velocity of the ball I just tossed becoming zero" 
is not considered to be momentary, in spite of calculus, because the 
precise beginning and end points are cannot be defined as equal, just 
not distinguishable.




___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



--

--
 Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
 Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
   |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
 |
   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   |
 |
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl   |
--

Re: [Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRM issue

[Simon Spero]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Stead  wrote:

> The question is not could we generalise the property to E2 but are
> there potential instances of E2 that are not E3's or E4's that potentially
> do not have decomposition. I do not know and additionally I am not sure I
> want to
> spend a lot of time making sure that by their very nature all E2's
> are decomposable!!


This actually a rather significant ontological decision.
If there are temporal entities that cannot be so divided then the
underlying temporal ontology is *discrete. *
If every temporal entity  can always be so decomposed, then the underlying
temporal ontology is *dense*.

CRM is committed to a dense ontology (because of the approximate model of
time points, and the rejection of any momentary events*) , so it would seem
all E2 must be decomposable.

It is of course, not the case that the type of every part is the same as
the type of the whole; conversely, there may be certain granularities where
each part *is* of the same type - e.g. the granularity of a step, each part
of a walk is also a walk.

Simon
* e.g. "the upward velocity of the ball I just tossed becoming zero" is not
considered to be momentary, in spite of calculus, because the precise
beginning and end points are cannot be defined as equal, just not
distinguishable.