Re: [Crm-sig] Homework: issue 230

[Øyvind Eide]

6. feb. 2015 kl. 19:07 skrev Richard Light :

> 
> On 06/02/2015 18:11, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>> If one source refers to one object, then it is not a co-reference. Then it 
>> is a reference. 
>> 
>> Co-reference is there to say that you know (for some reason you may specify 
>> if you want to) that two or more word/phrases refer to the same real-world 
>> person. The latter can be specififed or it can be left undefined.
>> 
>> I fail to see why co-reference should solve the problem of single 
>> propositional objects referring to real world objects — we already had 
>> mecanisms for that.
> OK, here is an example.  This section of Linked Data text from the 
> recently-opened EEBO:
> 
> http://data.modes.org.uk/TEI-P5/EEBO-TCP/id/A01483.d1e2619
> 
> is, in my opinion, talking about this non-information object:
> 
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick
> 
> How would you model that in the CRM?

I would say the two are propositional objects co-referring. No problem.

> 
>> 
>> I have a feeling that the problems documented in the long paper would apply 
>> to single references too if the target is not modelled within your 
>> information system. This may be linked to fundamental problems with the 
>> whole linked data paradigm. But this is just a feeling so I have to flesh it 
>> out more to say something evidence based on it.
> This is an aspect of the issue which I don't understand.  If you can't 
> (knowingly) decide that you trust an external Linked Data resource and are 
> allowed to make assertions which touch on the entities which it defines, what 
> hope is there for the whole Linked Data project?  (Or, if this constraint is 
> specific to the CRM, then the same point applies more locally. :-) )

Sure you can trust something external to your infomration system. As, for 
instance, a propositional object.

I am afraid we may be talking past each other but it may be too late for me to 
see how…

Best,

Øyvind

> 
> Richard
> 
>> 
>> I may have misunderstood you question so please use smaller spoons if I did!
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> 
>> 6. feb. 2015 kl. 18:08 skrev Richard Light :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> If I have interpreted your longer paper correctly, that means that the 
>>> whole co-reference mechanism that the CRM has erected fails to address the 
>>> practical requirement which I would have.  That is, the ability for me to 
>>> indicate that a word or phrase in a source document refers (in my opinion), 
>>> to a specified real-world person (or other non-information object).
>>> 
>>> Have I got this right, and, if so, is there a CRM mechanism which does 
>>> allow me to make this kind of assertion?
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> 
>>> Richard
>>> 
>>> On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote:
 Dear all,
 
 Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two things:
 
 * New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep 
 semantic web complexity out of the CRM. Thanks to Gerald for input.
 
 
 * A draft for a document describing the complexity left out of the scope 
 notes, based on Martin's previous scope notes and input from Arianna (but 
 no responsibility on any of them for the result!). This document could be 
 developed into a technical paper referred to from CRM, to an article, or 
 both.
 
 
 
 Best,
 
 Øyvind
 ___
 Crm-sig mailing list
 Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
 http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Richard Light
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Richard Light

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework: issue 230

[Richard Light]

On 06/02/2015 18:11, Øyvind Eide wrote:
If one source refers to one object, then it is not a co-reference. 
Then it is a reference.


Co-reference is there to say that you know (for some reason you may 
specify if you want to) that two or more word/phrases refer to the 
same real-world person. The latter can be specififed or it can be left 
undefined.


I fail to see why co-reference should solve the problem of single 
propositional objects referring to real world objects — we already had 
mecanisms for that.
OK, here is an example.  This section of Linked Data text from the 
recently-opened EEBO:


http://data.modes.org.uk/TEI-P5/EEBO-TCP/id/A01483.d1e2619

is, in my opinion, talking about this non-information object:

http://dbpedia.org/resource/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick

How would you model that in the CRM?



I have a feeling that the problems documented in the long paper would 
apply to single references too if the target is not modelled within 
your information system. This may be linked to fundamental problems 
with the whole linked data paradigm. But this is just a feeling so I 
have to flesh it out more to say something evidence based on it.
This is an aspect of the issue which I don't understand.  If you can't 
(knowingly) decide that you trust an external Linked Data resource and 
are allowed to make assertions which touch on the entities which it 
defines, what hope is there for the whole Linked Data project?  (Or, if 
this constraint is specific to the CRM, then the same point applies more 
locally. :-) )


Richard



I may have misunderstood you question so please use smaller spoons if 
I did!


Regards,

Øyvind

6. feb. 2015 kl. 18:08 skrev Richard Light >:



Hi,

If I have interpreted your longer paper correctly, that means that 
the whole co-reference mechanism that the CRM has erected fails to 
address the practical requirement which I would have.  That is, the 
ability for me to indicate that a word or phrase in a source document 
refers (in my opinion), to a specified real-world person (or other 
non-information object).


Have I got this right, and, if so, is there a CRM mechanism which 
/does /allow me to make this kind of assertion?


Best wishes,

Richard

On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote:

Dear all,

Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two 
things:


* New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep 
semantic web complexity out of the CRM. Thanks to Gerald for input.



* A draft for a document describing the complexity left out of the 
scope notes, based on Martin's previous scope notes and input from 
Arianna (but no responsibility on any of them for the result!). This 
document could be developed into a technical paper referred to from 
CRM, to an article, or both.




Best,

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


--
*Richard Light*




--
*Richard Light*

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework: issue 230

[Øyvind Eide]

If one source refers to one object, then it is not a co-reference. Then it is a 
reference. 

Co-reference is there to say that you know (for some reason you may specify if 
you want to) that two or more word/phrases refer to the same real-world person. 
The latter can be specififed or it can be left undefined.

I fail to see why co-reference should solve the problem of single propositional 
objects referring to real world objects — we already had mecanisms for that.

I have a feeling that the problems documented in the long paper would apply to 
single references too if the target is not modelled within your information 
system. This may be linked to fundamental problems with the whole linked data 
paradigm. But this is just a feeling so I have to flesh it out more to say 
something evidence based on it.

I may have misunderstood you question so please use smaller spoons if I did!

Regards,

Øyvind

6. feb. 2015 kl. 18:08 skrev Richard Light :

> Hi,
> 
> If I have interpreted your longer paper correctly, that means that the whole 
> co-reference mechanism that the CRM has erected fails to address the 
> practical requirement which I would have.  That is, the ability for me to 
> indicate that a word or phrase in a source document refers (in my opinion), 
> to a specified real-world person (or other non-information object).
> 
> Have I got this right, and, if so, is there a CRM mechanism which does allow 
> me to make this kind of assertion?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Richard
> 
> On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two things:
>> 
>> * New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep 
>> semantic web complexity out of the CRM. Thanks to Gerald for input.
>> 
>> 
>> * A draft for a document describing the complexity left out of the scope 
>> notes, based on Martin's previous scope notes and input from Arianna (but no 
>> responsibility on any of them for the result!). This document could be 
>> developed into a technical paper referred to from CRM, to an article, or 
>> both.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> ___
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> -- 
> Richard Light

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework: issue 230

[Richard Light]

Hi,

If I have interpreted your longer paper correctly, that means that the 
whole co-reference mechanism that the CRM has erected fails to address 
the practical requirement which I would have.  That is, the ability for 
me to indicate that a word or phrase in a source document refers (in my 
opinion), to a specified real-world person (or other non-information 
object).


Have I got this right, and, if so, is there a CRM mechanism which /does 
/allow me to make this kind of assertion?


Best wishes,

Richard

On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote:

Dear all,

Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two things:

* New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep 
semantic web complexity out of the CRM. Thanks to Gerald for input.



* A draft for a document describing the complexity left out of the 
scope notes, based on Martin's previous scope notes and input from 
Arianna (but no responsibility on any of them for the result!). This 
document could be developed into a technical paper referred to from 
CRM, to an article, or both.




Best,

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


--
*Richard Light*

[Crm-sig] CRM - SPECTRUM integration

[Richard Light]

Hi,

In relation to this agenda item, I am attaching a mapping which Nick 
Crofts did in 2000, plus one which I started the summer before last.  
See you all on Monday.


Richard
--
*Richard Light*
<>

[Crm-sig] Homework, primitive values

[martin]

Dear All,

We have discussed the scope note with Carlo, Mark, Patrick and 
Christian-Emil
the scope note of E59, but without coming to a conclusion yet. As we are 
approaching the meeting, I report the current stage.
One question is, if "Primitive Value" is a good label, given the 
extended meaning to complex data types we associate with it.


I propose:
current definition:
E59 Primitive Value

Superclass of: E60 <#_E60_Number> Number
E61 <#_E61_Time_Primitive> Time Primitive
E62 <#_E62_String> String

Scope Note:  This class comprises primitive values used as 
documentation elements, which are not further elaborated upon within the 
model.


 As such they are not considered as elements within our universe of 
discourse. No specific implementation recommendations are made. It is 
recommended that the primitive value system from the implementation 
platform be used to substitute for this class and its subclasses.


Examples:

§ ABCDEFG (E62)
   §  3.14 (E60)
  §  0
  §  1921-01-01 (E61)

To become:

E59 Primitive Value

Superclass of: E60 <#_E60_Number> Number
E61 <#_E61_Time_Primitive> Time Primitive
E62 <#_E62_String> String

Scope Note:This class comprises values of primitive data types of 
programming languages or database management systems and data types 
composed of such values used as documentation elements, as well as their 
mathematical abstractions. They are not considered as elements of the 
universe of discourse this model aimes at defining and analyzing. 
Rather, they play the role of a symbolic interface between the scope of 
this model and the world of mathematical and computational  
manipulations and the symbolic objects they define and handle. In 
particular they comprise lexical forms encoded as "strings" or series of 
characters and symbols based on encoding schemes such as UNICODE and 
values of datatypes that can be encoded in a lexical form, including 
quantitative specifications of time-spans and geometry. They have in 
common that instances of E59 Primitive Value define themselves by virtue 
of their encoded value, regardless the nature of their mathematical 
abstractions. Therefore they must not be represented in an 
implementation by a universal identifier associated with a content model 
of different identity.



We have not agreed if this additional explanation is useful at all or 
more confusing:


"Any implementations of primitive values in a database management system 
is necessarily a limited subset of the respective mathematical 
abstractions. For instance, the number of character types may be limited 
to the UNICODE set, integers to 64 bit representation, or real numbers 
to binary floating point numbers with a limited mantissa and exponent. 
On the other side, our current scientific ontological understanding of 
physical reality regards physical spaces and continuous processes of any 
kind to be isomorphic with real numbers or derivatives of the latter. 
Similarly, potential symbol sets are unlimited in reality.


Therefore this model, being an ontology and not a data schema, commits 
only to the respective abstractions of data types and primitive values, 
and not on their implementation-induced limitations. Consequently, any 
data schema implementing this model, including all knowledge 
representation languages, constitutes a logical subset of this model 
with respect to its data values, which may have varying utility in 
different application settings. Consequently, no specific implementation 
recommendations are made. In a concrete application, it is recommended 
that the primitive value system from a chosen implementation platform 
and/or data definition language be used to substitute for this class and 
its subclasses."




Best,

Martin

--

--
 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|
--

[Crm-sig] Twitter @CRMSIG

[Dominic Oldman]

The CRMSIG Twitter page currently has 70 followers which have resulted from 
following 652 museums and museum related personnel. I add new ones every week.


Many of the followers are currently UK local and regional museums reflecting my 
bias but I have started getting followers in mainland europe and Asia. 


I will continue to add new organisations and people so that CRMSIG 
announcements can be communicated to a wide range of people. 

Please suggest relevant cultural heritage organisations or people that have 
twitter addresses and I will add them.

Cheers,

Dominic

Re: [Crm-sig] Money, money, money...

[Dominic Oldman]

I have sent the BM models and interface.

It is stuck in the list because of the size of attachement.

D



 From: martin 
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr 
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Money, money, money...
 

Dear All,

I think the issue of business transactions with monetary exchange and other
exchange goods is overdue.
In order to address this in CRM-SIG, we need a some database schema/ 
data structure
in scope we can take as empirical material.
I believe acquisition of museum objects is one area of application. 
Another, I was
just recently pointed to, is transcription of Bronce Age texts.

Please propose as many data structures as possible to study requirements.

Best,

Martin

On 6/2/2015 2:12 πμ, Stephen Stead wrote:
> Dan
> I stick by my original points.
> It is not P16 used specific object unless you want to refer to a particular
> coin or note ie this is the coin that was used to buy the pen that was used
> to sign the treaty.
> Rgds
> SdS
>
> Stephen Stead
> Tel +44 20 8668 3075
> Mob +44 7802 755 013
> E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Dan Matei
> Sent: 05 February 2015 20:48
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; vladimir.alex...@ontotext.com
> Subject: [Crm-sig] Money, money, money...
>
> Dear all
>
> I have to state a "simple" fact: "The object X is purchased with Y euro."
>
> I found the 2011 discussion between Vladimir Alexiev and Stephen Stead on
> this topic:
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/2011-November/001693.html
>
> I'm not quite happy with their conclusion :-(
>
> Two issues:
>
> A.    The relationship between the purchasing event and the money paid
>
> I think that the natural relationship between the crm:E8_Acquisition and the
> amount paid (Y) is crm:P16_used_specific_object.
>
> [P16 SN: This property describes the use of material or immaterial things in
> a way essential to the performance or the outcome of an E7 Activity.]
>
> The money is "essential to the performance" of the acquisition, no ? :-)
>
>
> B.    Which is the right class of the "money" ?
>
> B.1. The amount is a crm: E72_Legal_Object, right ?
>
> [E72 SN: This class comprises those material or immaterial items to which
> instances of E30 Right, such as the right of ownership or use, can be
> applied.]
>
> Rights apply to money, right ?
>
> So, my (first) solution is:
>
> [
>      {
>          "@id": "#X",
>          "@type": "crm:E22_Man-Made_Object",
>          "statement": {
>              "@id": "#s1",
>              "predicate": "crm:P24i_changed_ownership_through",
>              "object": "#purchase"
>          }
>      },
>      {
>          "@id": "#purchase",
>          "@type": "crm:E8_Acquisition",
>          "statement": {
>              "@id": "#s2",
>              "predicate": "crm:P16_used_specific_object",
>              "predicateQualifier": "#amountPaid",
>              "object": "#price"
>          }
>      },
>      {
>          "@id": "#price",
>          "@type": "crm:E72_Legal_Object",
>          "statement": [
>              {
>                  "@id": "#s3",
>                  "predicate": "crm:P2_has_type",
>                  "object": "#currency"
>              },
>              {
>                  "@id": "#s4",
>                  "predicate": "crm:P43_has_dimension",
>                  "object": "#amount"
>              }
>          ]
>      },
>      {
>          "@id": "#amount",
>          "@type": "crm:E54_Dimension",
>          "statement": [
>              {
>                  "@id": "#s5",
>                  "predicate": "crm:P2_has_type",
>                  "object": "#sum"
>              },
>              {
>                  "@id": "#s6",
>                  "predicate": "crm:P90_has_value",
>                  "object": {
>                      "@value": "Y",
>                      "@type": "xsd:integer"
>                  }
>              },
>              {
>                  "@id": "#s7",
>                  "predicate": "crm:P91_has_unit",
>                  "object": "#euro"
>              }
>          ]
>      }
> ]
>
> A bit long... And the entity #price do not tells much.
>
>
> B.2. An amount of money is not an instance of crm: E54_Dimension ?
>
> [E54 SN: An instance of E54 Dimension represents the true quantity,
> independent from its numerical approximation, e.g. in inches or in cm.]
>
> A sum of money is not "a true quantity" ? I'm inclined to the affirmative.
> So, if I understand correctly the E54, I could use a double instantiation
> and shorten a bit my solution:
>
> [
>      {
>          "@id": "#X",
>          "@type": "crm:E22_Man-Made_Object",
>          "statement": {
>              "@id": "#s1",
>              "predicate": "crm:P24i_changed_ownership_through",
>              "object": "#purchase"
>          }
>      },
>      {
>          "@id": "#

Re: [Crm-sig] Money, money, money...

[martin]

Dear All,

I think the issue of business transactions with monetary exchange and other
exchange goods is overdue.
In order to address this in CRM-SIG, we need a some database schema/ 
data structure

in scope we can take as empirical material.
I believe acquisition of museum objects is one area of application. 
Another, I was

just recently pointed to, is transcription of Bronce Age texts.

Please propose as many data structures as possible to study requirements.

Best,

Martin

On 6/2/2015 2:12 πμ, Stephen Stead wrote:

Dan
I stick by my original points.
It is not P16 used specific object unless you want to refer to a particular
coin or note ie this is the coin that was used to buy the pen that was used
to sign the treaty.
Rgds
SdS

Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads


-Original Message-
From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Dan Matei
Sent: 05 February 2015 20:48
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; vladimir.alex...@ontotext.com
Subject: [Crm-sig] Money, money, money...

Dear all

I have to state a "simple" fact: "The object X is purchased with Y euro."

I found the 2011 discussion between Vladimir Alexiev and Stephen Stead on
this topic:
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/2011-November/001693.html

I'm not quite happy with their conclusion :-(

Two issues:

A.  The relationship between the purchasing event and the money paid

I think that the natural relationship between the crm:E8_Acquisition and the
amount paid (Y) is crm:P16_used_specific_object.

[P16 SN: This property describes the use of material or immaterial things in
a way essential to the performance or the outcome of an E7 Activity.]

The money is "essential to the performance" of the acquisition, no ? :-)


B.  Which is the right class of the "money" ?

B.1. The amount is a crm: E72_Legal_Object, right ?

[E72 SN: This class comprises those material or immaterial items to which
instances of E30 Right, such as the right of ownership or use, can be
applied.]

Rights apply to money, right ?

So, my (first) solution is:

[
 {
 "@id": "#X",
 "@type": "crm:E22_Man-Made_Object",
 "statement": {
 "@id": "#s1",
 "predicate": "crm:P24i_changed_ownership_through",
 "object": "#purchase"
 }
 },
 {
 "@id": "#purchase",
 "@type": "crm:E8_Acquisition",
 "statement": {
 "@id": "#s2",
 "predicate": "crm:P16_used_specific_object",
 "predicateQualifier": "#amountPaid",
 "object": "#price"
 }
 },
 {
 "@id": "#price",
 "@type": "crm:E72_Legal_Object",
 "statement": [
 {
 "@id": "#s3",
 "predicate": "crm:P2_has_type",
 "object": "#currency"
 },
 {
 "@id": "#s4",
 "predicate": "crm:P43_has_dimension",
 "object": "#amount"
 }
 ]
 },
 {
 "@id": "#amount",
 "@type": "crm:E54_Dimension",
 "statement": [
 {
 "@id": "#s5",
 "predicate": "crm:P2_has_type",
 "object": "#sum"
 },
 {
 "@id": "#s6",
 "predicate": "crm:P90_has_value",
 "object": {
 "@value": "Y",
 "@type": "xsd:integer"
 }
 },
 {
 "@id": "#s7",
 "predicate": "crm:P91_has_unit",
 "object": "#euro"
 }
 ]
 }
]

A bit long... And the entity #price do not tells much.


B.2. An amount of money is not an instance of crm: E54_Dimension ?

[E54 SN: An instance of E54 Dimension represents the true quantity,
independent from its numerical approximation, e.g. in inches or in cm.]

A sum of money is not "a true quantity" ? I'm inclined to the affirmative.
So, if I understand correctly the E54, I could use a double instantiation
and shorten a bit my solution:

[
 {
 "@id": "#X",
 "@type": "crm:E22_Man-Made_Object",
 "statement": {
 "@id": "#s1",
 "predicate": "crm:P24i_changed_ownership_through",
 "object": "#purchase"
 }
 },
 {
 "@id": "#purchase",
 "@type": "crm:E8_Acquisition",
 "statement": {
 "@id": "#s2",
 "predicate": "crm:P16_used_specific_object",
 "predicateQualifier": "#amountPaid",
 "object": "#price"
 }
 },
 {
 "@id": "#price",
 "@type": [
 "crm:E72_Legal_Object",
 "crm:E54_Dimension"
 ],
 "statement": [
 {
 "@id": "#s3",
 "predicate": "crm:P2_has_type",

Re: [Crm-sig] HW: Issue 234

[martin]

Dear Oeyvind,

Thank you for your comments!

On 6/2/2015 12:20 μμ, Øyvind Eide wrote:

>
>On the other side, we can identify E93 with the verb "was" in the sense of the 
Spanish/ Italian? estar / stare ?.

In my little on-computer dictionary “stare” has 13 senses which seems to cover 
a large semantic room. I will leave it to the speakers of the languages to 
decide on the issue...

Sure, I just meant the analogy of "estar" with the sense of temporarily 
being somewhere or being in some temporary state, in contrast to the 
sense of being something. I find it interesting, that such a 
differentiation of "being" exists in these languages using a completely 
different verb, besides other senses of course.


--

--
 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   |
--

[Crm-sig] Some notes on Issue 268 and 269 coins, notes, marks and industrial design

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

Some notes on Issue 268 and 269
These two issues are about mass produced objects and how to model them in a CRM 
and FRBRoo setting.

The discussion started with coins, bank notes and stamps. The intended function 
of objects of all three categories is to be value symbols. On the other hand, 
they can be viewed as mass produced object where the design, the designer and 
motif can be of interest for scholars in history, art history and cultural 
studies, (e.g German notgeld from 1920ies http://notgeld.meulie.net/) .  The 
can also be kept in museums, libraries and archives.  This can be extended to 
mass produced object for example design by famous persons like Alvar Aalto, Le 
Corbusier, etc.  The design of such object are protected through legislation 
for industrial design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design) The 
PIXAR lamp logo was taken from a Norwegian lamp producer and resulted in a law 
suit (http://glamox.com/upload/2012/02/14/_l1-360x240.png). 

To my understanding industrial design and mass produced objects are in the 
scope of CRM/FRBRoo. CRM is not developed to tackle the complexity and FRBRoo 
is perhaps too focused on bibliographical data.  In these notes (I apologies 
for typos and language errors) I look a little into the problem complex. My 
conclusion is that FRBRoo can almost model documentation about design and mass 
produced object. F3 Manifestation Product Type is the most problematic. A 
solution can be to adjust FRBRoo or make a very small extenstion

Chr-Emil

*

CIDOC-CRM does not model intellectual objects in a detail. Still it is possible 
to use the type system model artefacts produced in large numbers, for example 
coins by simply stating that a coin has a given type in a predefined numismatic 
nomenclature, that is, a coin catalogue. 
It is possible in CRM to model the process of defining types. For example 
CIDOC-CRM can be used to model the species definition in natural history 
museums, see  for example 
http://www.edd.uio.no/nedlasting/cidoc/tdwg2005_Lampe_Ore_final.pdf


** Industrial (mass) production 
CRM can also be used to model a production process. The class E12 Production 
can be given a type describing both the process and the kind of products. 

In an email 22.11.2014 Maria Theodoridou refers to an extension of CRM:

E12 Production. PC1 produced things of type: E55 Type
E22 Man-Made Object. PC2 is example of: E55 Type

Both PC1 and PC2 are subproperties of P2 has type

Maria writes that the idea is that the property PC2 is similar to R7 and PC1 is 
similar to R26 respectively in FRBRoo.

Definition in  FRBRoo:

F3 Manifestation Product Type is a sub class of E55 Type

F5 Item. R7 is example of  F3 Manifestation Product Type.
R7 is a subproperty of  E1 CRM Entity. P2 has type (is type of): E55 Type

E32 Carrier Production Event. R26 produced things of type F3 Manifestation 
Product Type
R26 is a subproperty of E12 Production. P108 has produced: E24 Physical 
Man-Made Thing. P2 has type: E55 Type

(Digression:   The '.1'- properties having properties as domain and E55 Type as 
range. It can be seen as a shorthand for defining sub properties of a basic 
property. The '.1'-properies  are not sub properties of any standard property 
since a property is not a an instance of  E1 CRM Entity. There is no CRM class 
E??? Property. All sub properties of for example  "E12 Production. P108 has 
produced: E24 Physical Man-MadeThing"  must have  domain  E12 Production or a 
subclass of E12, similar for the range. At least according to my understanding 
of the intention behind '.1'-properties the super property of R26 is not well 
defined. This is not a part of the actual issues, but one may consider to 
revise the definition of R26 and to make it a sub property of P2.)

If one introduces PC1 and PC2 in CRM and makes R26 into a sub property of P2 
then R7 and R26 can be sub properties of PC2 and PC1 respectively.


* The intellectual process connected to mass production ***

There are many museums having departments and exhibitions focusing on design. 
The objects can typically be exemplars of mass produced objects like furniture, 
plates, glasses, clothing etc. The objects are examples of the design and may 
not have special interest as unique artefacts. The focus is on the design, 
designers, material and cultural context and influence. The documentation is 
not unlike what one may find in a good FRBR based library catalogue. 

CIDOC-CRM is not sufficiently developed to model this. FRBRoo is, but has a 
library/bibliographical point of view? This is true and not true. For example 
in the scope note for F1 Work there are three examples, etching, three 
dimensional sculpture and a play:

Abstract content of Giovanni Battista Piranesi's 'Carcere XVI: the pier with 
chains: 1st state' (F14)

'La Porte de l'Enfer' by Auguste Rodin conceived between 1880 and 

[Crm-sig] Homework 234 d)

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Here is my homework on the scope note for E4. <>
 The main changes are connected to what we discussed in the last meeting, 
making clear that the spatial area of island cultures may include the sea 
between the islands. I also added a clause about overlapping land use that 
makes sense to me.

In addition, I made a clarification about the relationship between E4 and E53 
which would have helped me if I were a new user. Not sure it fits here, may be 
it should be in E53 and/or in a general part.

The scope note is a bit (too) long but I suppose it will have to be adjusted 
again after the E92 invasion. Maybe we can move some stuff elsewhere then.


Best,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE E4 IsA E92, E18 IsA E92

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

Seeing E4 Period as a type of E92 Space Time Volume is a stretch, but in some 
sense it feels natural. Period is a temporal entity stretching out in time so 
the similarity to the more general Space Time Volume is in some sense natural.

On the other hand, saying that E18 Physical Thing isa E92 Space Time Volume 
feels strange. Does that not amount to saying that in some sense a thing IS its 
extension in space and time? 

I see the arguments for simplification but the inheritance also needs to be 
ontologically true. Is it? Can something be a space-time thing and a endurant 
at the same time? 

Maybe this establishes a multiple inheritance in E18 Physical Thing as a link 
between the 3D and the 4D world. What would Plato say to that?
;-)


Regards,

Øyvind

On 28. jan. 2015, at 22:45, martin wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> I propose E4 Period and E18 Physical Thing to become subclass
> of E92 Space Time Volume, in the sense of the phenomenal spatiotemporal
> extent, which is necessaryly one-to-one. This will greatly simplify dealing 
> with topological relations between things and periods, and restore 
> consistency that Allen relations are directly attached to the temporal
> entity rather than its time-span. 
> It does not create any existence-period conflict with E4 or E18.
> 
> It further simplifies use of Snapshot to say where things are during some
> time-span.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
>  
> -- 
> 
> --
>  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
>|
> --
> 
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Register for Monday morning

[Donna Kurtz]

Thank you for registering. 14 SIG members registered. If you have not yet 
registered please do so today.

Professor Donna Kurtz
Senior Research Fellow, Oxford University e-Research Centre
7 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QG
44 (0) 1865 610625

Emeritus Professor of Classical Art, Faculty of Classics, Oxford
Emeritus Fellow, Wolfson College, Oxford
Websites: www.culturalheritage.ox.ac.uk, 
www.clarosnet.org, 
www.waa.ox.ac.uk

Sent from my iPad

Re: [Crm-sig] Money, money, money...

[Stephen Stead]

Dan
I stick by my original points.
It is not P16 used specific object unless you want to refer to a particular
coin or note ie this is the coin that was used to buy the pen that was used
to sign the treaty.
Rgds
SdS

Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075 
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads


-Original Message-
From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Dan Matei
Sent: 05 February 2015 20:48
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; vladimir.alex...@ontotext.com
Subject: [Crm-sig] Money, money, money...

Dear all

I have to state a "simple" fact: "The object X is purchased with Y euro."

I found the 2011 discussion between Vladimir Alexiev and Stephen Stead on
this topic:
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/2011-November/001693.html

I'm not quite happy with their conclusion :-(

Two issues:

A.  The relationship between the purchasing event and the money paid

I think that the natural relationship between the crm:E8_Acquisition and the
amount paid (Y) is crm:P16_used_specific_object.

[P16 SN: This property describes the use of material or immaterial things in
a way essential to the performance or the outcome of an E7 Activity.]

The money is "essential to the performance" of the acquisition, no ? :-)


B.  Which is the right class of the "money" ?

B.1. The amount is a crm: E72_Legal_Object, right ?

[E72 SN: This class comprises those material or immaterial items to which
instances of E30 Right, such as the right of ownership or use, can be
applied.]

Rights apply to money, right ?

So, my (first) solution is:

[
{
"@id": "#X",
"@type": "crm:E22_Man-Made_Object",
"statement": {
"@id": "#s1",
"predicate": "crm:P24i_changed_ownership_through",
"object": "#purchase"
}
},
{
"@id": "#purchase",
"@type": "crm:E8_Acquisition",
"statement": {
"@id": "#s2",
"predicate": "crm:P16_used_specific_object",
"predicateQualifier": "#amountPaid",
"object": "#price"
}
},
{
"@id": "#price",
"@type": "crm:E72_Legal_Object",
"statement": [
{
"@id": "#s3",
"predicate": "crm:P2_has_type",
"object": "#currency"
},
{
"@id": "#s4",
"predicate": "crm:P43_has_dimension",
"object": "#amount"
}
]
},
{
"@id": "#amount",
"@type": "crm:E54_Dimension",
"statement": [
{
"@id": "#s5",
"predicate": "crm:P2_has_type",
"object": "#sum"
},
{
"@id": "#s6",
"predicate": "crm:P90_has_value",
"object": {
"@value": "Y",
"@type": "xsd:integer"
}
},
{
"@id": "#s7",
"predicate": "crm:P91_has_unit",
"object": "#euro"
}
]
}
]

A bit long... And the entity #price do not tells much.


B.2. An amount of money is not an instance of crm: E54_Dimension ?

[E54 SN: An instance of E54 Dimension represents the true quantity,
independent from its numerical approximation, e.g. in inches or in cm.]

A sum of money is not "a true quantity" ? I'm inclined to the affirmative.
So, if I understand correctly the E54, I could use a double instantiation
and shorten a bit my solution:

[
{
"@id": "#X",
"@type": "crm:E22_Man-Made_Object",
"statement": {
"@id": "#s1",
"predicate": "crm:P24i_changed_ownership_through",
"object": "#purchase"
}
},
{
"@id": "#purchase",
"@type": "crm:E8_Acquisition",
"statement": {
"@id": "#s2",
"predicate": "crm:P16_used_specific_object",
"predicateQualifier": "#amountPaid",
"object": "#price"
}
},
{
"@id": "#price",
"@type": [
"crm:E72_Legal_Object",
"crm:E54_Dimension"
],
"statement": [
{
"@id": "#s3",
"predicate": "crm:P2_has_type",
"object": [
"#currency",
"#sum"
]
},
{
"@id": "#s4",
"predicate": "crm:P90_has_value",
"object": {
"@value": "Y",
"@type": "xsd:integer"
}
},
{
"@id": "#s5",
"predicate": "crm:P91_has_unit",
"object": "#euro"
}
]
}
]

I.e. the amount of money is in the same time an instance of E72 AND E54.

Is that legitimate ?

Dan


___