Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance

[Richard Light]

On 11/05/2018 08:50, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear Richard,
>
> Following the latest extensions of the scope note of E4 Period, a
> geopolitical entity is indeed regarded as a case (type,
> specialization) of E4 Period. Since E4 Period IsA E92 spacetime
> volume, its projection at some time or at all times is an
> E53 Place. See respective properties, they should covers all cases:
> P161, E93, P164.
>
> So, multiple inheritance yes, but with E92, not E53.
Martin,

Thanks.  I have now found the CRMgeo documentation, and I'm working my
way through it ...

Best wishes,

Richard
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 5/11/2018 12:47 AM, Richard Light wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm wanting to encourage a colleague to use a CRM-based approach to a
>> geographical-themed project.  We're talking about geopolitical [and
>> geographical] entities which have a known duration (e.g. 'Abingdon
>> from the 17th century until local government reorganisation in 1974').
>>
>> This could be modelled as a subclass of E4 Period, which neatly binds
>> together the place and time aspects we want to record.  Conversely it
>> could be modelled as a subclass of E53 Place, which would allow us to
>> express relationships between this entity and other geopolitical
>> units using existing properties.  I see that there are precedents in
>> the CRM for declaring a class as being a subclass of two different
>> classes (e.g. E45 Address).  However I am concerned about the fact
>> that E4 Period already has 'place-ness' inherent in it.  Should I be
>> worried?  Are there any guidelines I should be looking at?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> -- 
>> *Richard Light*
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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   |
> --
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

-- 
*Richard Light*

Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Daria,

Continuing, I'd like to point you to the definition of "Contact Point". 
I think it is consistent to regard networks as services,
and IP adresses as identifiers that can be resolved by a particular 
service. Postal Adresses use to be the same in the aspect of resolution, 
but simultaneously the endpoint they resolve to is traditionally(!) an 
actual place, and actually in a way non-post office people can resolve. 
The question of P.O. boxes is a border case. IP adresses resolve to 
services again, but we do not have a "Service Name" class, as we do have 
a "Place Name" class, and the resolution is less transparent and 
persistently related to external entities, such as street names, city 
names, country names.


I think "Contact Point" makes the generalization already you are asking for.

All the best,

martin

On 5/11/2018 10:02 AM, Stephen Stead wrote:


Dear Daria

Good morning,

I do not see the parallel between E53 Place and E45 Address with 
IP-addresses and VPN.


In E53 Place we have a real-world place, typically a geographic extent 
on the surface of the Earth (though not restricted to this as we know) 
and in E45 Address we have a name for a place that is used in a 
particular context (for example postal).


The parallel is closer to the relationship between MAC address and IP 
address. VPNs are just different contexts within which to reuse the 
names that are IP addresses.


We should remember that instances of E53 Place may be well known in 
literature but not very well defined on the surface of the Earth; for 
example the Site of the Battle of Thermopylae is well known but the 
actual spatial extent is unknown (and actually, I would contend, 
unknowable!). We may have many guesses or approximations about its 
spatial extent and that is what the CRMgeo allows us to capture. We 
may also have many names or appellations for it and these names may be 
used in the real world for both the actual Site of the battle and for 
various approximations. Life and language are so wonderfully rich!!


Best Regards

SdS

Stephen Stead

Tel +44 20 8668 3075

Mob +44 7802 755 013

E-mail ste...@paveprime.com

LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/

*From:*Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] *On Behalf Of 
*? ??? ???

*Sent:* 11 May 2018 06:31
*To:* Richard Light ; crm-sig 


*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance

Dear all,

generalising examples we get the same situation with E53 Place and E45 
Address like we have now with IP-addresses and VPN.


Real place with Internet-access can be somewhere on globe (GPS) and 
others recieve coded numbers (Singapore, Any Islands...), which are 
various in different time period.


Taking in account we work with digital heritage too, better to find 
common decision in both cases, real and virtual.




With kind regards,
Daria Hookk

Senior Researcher of
the dept. of archaeology of
Eastern Europe and Siberia of
the State Hermitage Museum,
ICOMOS member


19, Санкт-Петербург, Дворцовая наб.34
Тел. (812) 3121966; мест. 2548
Факс (812) 7109009
E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru 



___
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   |
--

[Crm-sig] ISSUE 332, S22 Segment of Matter

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

Here my rework.

Old scope note:


 S22 Segment of Matter//

Subclass of: S20 <#_S20_Physical_Feature>Physical Feature

Scope Note:This class comprises physical features in a relative 
stability of form within a specific spacetime volume. The spatial extent 
of an instance of S22 Segment of Matter is defined by humans usually 
because the geometric arrangement of physical features or parts of them 
on or within it are of interest. An instance of S22 Segment of Matter 
exists as long as there is no modification of the geometric arrangement 
of its parts. Therefore the temporal boundaries of the defining 
spacetime volume are given by two S18 Alteration events. It comes into 
existence as being an object of discourse through an instance of S4 
Observation or declaration and is restricted to the time span starting 
after the last change caused by an instance of S18 Alteration before the 
observation or declaration and ending with an instance of another S18 
Alteration Event.


The history of a S22 Segment of Matter started with a S17 Physical 
Genesis event that deposited still existing matter within the defined 
spatial extent. The collection of all S18 Alteration events represent 
its history. Some of the events will not leave any physical material 
within the S22 Segment of Matter.


In other words, this is a fiat object (B. Smith sense) that has 
declarative boundaries in 3 dimensions but natural boundaries in time 
(the 4^th dimension).



NEW SCOPE NOTE:


 S22 Segment of Matter//

Subclass of: S20 <#_S20_Physical_Feature>Physical Feature

Scope Note:This class comprises physical features with relative 
stability of form and structure within a declared spatial volume of 
interest. The spatial extend of an instance of S22 Segment of Matter may 
be declared defined by a researcher or observer usually because the 
arrangement and composition of substance is characteristic for the 
surrounding matter or can be interpreted as traces of its genesis and 
subsequent internal and external processes it was exposed to. The 
defining spatial extend is typically declared on a continuous matter by 
means of geometric determination without observable boundaries on all 
sides or any side. It may however be extracted at some point in time 
along the declared boundaries.


An instance of S22 Segment of Matter is regarded to be existing from the 
time on it completely consolidated in a solid form and structure that 
still preserved in a recognizable way at the time of spatial definition. 
Its existence is regarded to end when its respective integrity is 
partially or completely corrupted. Uncorrupted subsections of an 
instance of S22 Segment of Matter may continue to exist as segments of 
matter in their own right beyond the existence of the containing 
instance, and may have consolidated before it.


Typical examples are segments of archaeological or geological layers. 
They are regarded as uncorrupted even if they have undergone conformal 
deformations, such as compressions or shifts, as long as the effects of 
these deformations do not destroy the relevant structures of interest. 
This means that the defining spatial volume may be only geometrically 
valid for an instant of time for which it was declared, and undergo 
before and after deformations. In some cases it may be possible to 
calculate the initial volume at consolidation time, for instance for 
petrified bones compressed in Jurassic layers.


--
--
 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|
--

--
--
 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)   |
   

Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Richard,

Following the latest extensions of the scope note of E4 Period, a 
geopolitical entity is indeed regarded as a case (type, specialization) 
of E4 Period. Since E4 Period IsA E92 spacetime volume, its projection 
at some time or at all times is an
E53 Place. See respective properties, they should covers all cases: 
P161, E93, P164.


So, multiple inheritance yes, but with E92, not E53.

Best,

Martin

On 5/11/2018 12:47 AM, Richard Light wrote:


Hi,

I'm wanting to encourage a colleague to use a CRM-based approach to a 
geographical-themed project.  We're talking about geopolitical [and 
geographical] entities which have a known duration (e.g. 'Abingdon 
from the 17th century until local government reorganisation in 1974').


This could be modelled as a subclass of E4 Period, which neatly binds 
together the place and time aspects we want to record. Conversely it 
could be modelled as a subclass of E53 Place, which would allow us to 
express relationships between this entity and other geopolitical units 
using existing properties. I see that there are precedents in the CRM 
for declaring a class as being a subclass of two different classes 
(e.g. E45 Address).  However I am concerned about the fact that E4 
Period already has 'place-ness' inherent in it.  Should I be worried? 
Are there any guidelines I should be looking at?


Many thanks,

Richard

--
*Richard Light*


___
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] Multiple inheritance

[Stephen Stead]

Dear Daria

Good morning,

I do not see the parallel between E53 Place and E45 Address with IP-addresses 
and VPN.

In E53 Place we have a real-world place, typically a geographic extent on the 
surface of the Earth (though not restricted to this as we know) and in E45 
Address we have a name for a place that is used in a particular context (for 
example postal).

The parallel is closer to the relationship between MAC address and IP address. 
VPNs are just different contexts within which to reuse the names that are IP 
addresses.

We should remember that instances of E53 Place may be well known in literature 
but not very well defined on the surface of the Earth; for example the Site of 
the Battle of Thermopylae is well known but the actual spatial extent is 
unknown (and actually, I would contend, unknowable!). We may have many guesses 
or approximations about its spatial extent and that is what the CRMgeo allows 
us to capture. We may also have many names or appellations for it and these 
names may be used in the real world for both the actual Site of the battle and 
for various approximations. Life and language are so wonderfully rich!!

Best Regards

SdS

 

 

Stephen Stead

Tel +44 20 8668 3075 

Mob +44 7802 755 013

E-mail   ste...@paveprime.com

LinkedIn Profile   
https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/

 

From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of ? ??? 
???
Sent: 11 May 2018 06:31
To: Richard Light ; crm-sig 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance

 

Dear all,

generalising examples we get the same situation with E53 Place and E45 Address 
like we have now with IP-addresses and VPN.

Real place with Internet-access can be somewhere on globe (GPS) and others 
recieve coded numbers (Singapore, Any Islands...), which are various in 
different time period.

Taking in account we work with digital heritage too, better to find common 
decision in both cases, real and virtual.



With kind regards,
Daria Hookk

Senior Researcher of
the dept. of archaeology of
Eastern Europe and Siberia of 
the State Hermitage Museum,
ICOMOS member


19, Санкт-Петербург, Дворцовая наб.34
Тел. (812) 3121966; мест. 2548
Факс (812) 7109009
E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru  

Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance

[Дарья Юрьевна Гук]

Dear all,
generalising examples we get the same situation with E53 Place and E45 Address 
like we have now with IP-addresses and VPN.
Real place with Internet-access can be somewhere on globe (GPS) and others 
recieve coded numbers (Singapore, Any Islands...), which are various in 
different time period.
Taking in account we work with digital heritage too, better to find common 
decision in both cases, real and virtual.


With kind regards,
Daria Hookk

Senior Researcher of
the dept. of archaeology of
Eastern Europe and Siberia of 
the State Hermitage Museum,
ICOMOS member


19, Санкт-Петербург, Дворцовая наб.34
Тел. (812) 3121966; мест. 2548
Факс (812) 7109009
E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E74 Group (from LRMoo discussions)

[Robert Sanderson]

At the Getty, we have exactly this issue as well, but would extend it to at 
least gender. We feel that these are not intrinsics, and thus like the group 
membership pattern, especially for citizenship/nationality, as many people are 
multi-national over their lifetimes. Religions, as added by Martin, are another 
good example. One might add profession to the list as well – the set of people 
who are diplomats do not have the potential to act collectively, only 
individually within the context of their shared profession.

While the distinction between government and citizenry is debatable, the 
“church” and its followers, we see no potential for all males, females or other 
genders across all time to act collectively and would prefer a consistent 
pattern for these otherwise very similar modeling issues.

Rob

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Date: Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 7:00 AM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E74 Group (from LRMoo discussions)

Dear All,

This is a complex issue.

Firstly, we cannot support in the CRM Collective Agent or E74 Group being the 
complement of Person under Agent/ Actor. This violates the Open World 
condition, that definitions of classes must be indentifiable by positive 
criteria, and that any set of subclasses may be extended when we learn more 
about the world.

Secondly, reducing the scope of E74 Group is a non-monotonic change, causing 
backwards incompatibility.

Thirdly, we should always be aware that the CRM is not a terminological system, 
but classes are meant to be domain and range of properties. Reducing the 
definition of a class is justified when it helps avoiding obviously unintended 
models.

4) The question is, if a narrower definition of E74 helps avoiding confusing 
use of properties, or only satisfies a classification.
CRM classes should be, in question of doubt, more inclusive than exclusive.

The discussion, if a government represents itself or its citizens clearly 
shows, that it is not useful for the CRM to draw a line in which the 
representation question is resolved in a particularly unambiguous way. It is 
also not useful to apply principles
(as formulated in our new guide lines that Christian-Emil cited) that require 
intimate knowledge of the object. Archaeologists will hardly know such details 
in many cases, but lots of evidence of collective behavior.

Therefore, we apply a principle of potentiality: Having the potential to act 
collectively. May be this is not explicit enough in the definition of E74.

The requirement to have a name is, in my opinion, overly strict, and in 
archaeological cases widely inaccessible.

The question if a "nation" is or is not an instance of E74 creates a typical 
conflict between competing classification systems.

I think the essence of what we have discussed in Cologne was if there are 
unifying criteria that would exclude per se a collective behavior.

I would draw a line between individual behavior that exhibits similarities 
without requiring interaction and behavior that is substantially interaction 
based. In that sense, being German or Greek or Christian or Buddhist or atheist 
would be an individual classification. Being a Greek citizen however not. A 
Roman-catholic "christianity" participating in the clerical care would be a 
group, as well as a spontaneous no-name gang. A "nation" may or may not 
maintain ties that enable or have lead to collective action, such as 
migrations. One may distinguish those participating in a community from those 
being born or raised in a community but acting outside as independent 
individuals. "Atheists" may hardly be considered as a Group ever.

Interesting are cases of social groups suffering persecution, often falsely 
accused of acting collectively against the interests of others.

I would not require an organized leadership for E74.

I have rather the impression that we will need E74 to remain superclass of 
Collective Agent. We may more think of relaxing "legal body" to Collective 
Agent, than reducing E74.

Thoughts?

Best,

Martin

On 5/9/2018 11:38 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:

Hello

The issue ws discussed in the Cologne meeting. The changes in yellow do not 
fullfil the rquirement



"Propose to modify the scope note of E74 Group so that it clearly corresponds 
to LRM-E8 Collective Agent. To do this any groups of people not having agency, 
such as national, religious, cultural, ethnic groups, must be excluded from the 
scope of E74".



Members of a E74 Group are E39 Actors. Thus an instance of E74 Group can be a 
member of a E74 Group. This is exactly the case of IFLA itself.



In LRM "Collective Agent (LRM-E8) A gathering or organization of persons 
bearing a particular name and capable of acting as a unit".  Therefor IFLA 
cannot be modelled as a LRM-E8. An implication is that IFLA cannot be modelled 
as a LRM-E6 Agent, since an instance of LRM-E6​ Agent has to be an instance of 
LRM-E7 Person and/or  LRM-E8 

[Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance

[Richard Light]

Hi,

I'm wanting to encourage a colleague to use a CRM-based approach to a
geographical-themed project.  We're talking about geopolitical [and
geographical] entities which have a known duration (e.g. 'Abingdon from
the 17th century until local government reorganisation in 1974').

This could be modelled as a subclass of E4 Period, which neatly binds
together the place and time aspects we want to record.  Conversely it
could be modelled as a subclass of E53 Place, which would allow us to
express relationships between this entity and other geopolitical units
using existing properties.  I see that there are precedents in the CRM
for declaring a class as being a subclass of two different classes (e.g.
E45 Address).  However I am concerned about the fact that E4 Period
already has 'place-ness' inherent in it.  Should I be worried?  Are
there any guidelines I should be looking at?

Many thanks,

Richard

-- 
*Richard Light*