Re: [Crm-sig] Administrative units
Dear Richard,
In addition to Franco's comments, not all things having a temporal
dimension are activities. We'll discuss more next week.
I'd not think results of activities can be activities. Shoes are not
shoe-making.
We have here two aspects:
A) the legal declaration or convention
B) the administrative and other activities taking place in the areas,
respecting or being fostered, encouraged or initiated within these
limits. In that sense, yes, the legal act has consequences, not really
results. Isn't it?
Currently, we tend to model them as kinds of geopolitical units, i.e., B)
We discuss the new extension CRMSoc (social), to model legal constructs
respected or not by some communities. They form sorts of legal "states"
(the heavily overloaded word "state", we try to break down into more
specifics).
The tension between paper declarations and actual, observable
administration is a problem. Therefore I prefer the observable.
Martin
On 5/15/2018 7:13 PM, Richard Light wrote:
Hi,
Further to my previous question, and following a trawl through CRMgeo,
I have another one. :-)
How should one represent an administrative unit (such as Burgess Hill,
being the entity which is managed by Burgess Hill Town Council) using
the CRM? It's not a place (certainly not as defined in E53_Place);
nor is it an E74_Group. It's the result of collective human actions
and decisions. Administrative units have a temporal dimension, so
should be a subclass of E7_Activity. They have physical extent
(possibly changing over time). There are different types of
administrative unit, some of which are specifically relevant to
cultural heritage studies: registration districts; census 'pieces'.
Administrative units are created, destroyed, merged with other
administrative units, etc. They have relationships with other
administrative units, both generic containment/adjacency ones, and
also more specific 'administered by' ones.
Many local museum collections cite administrative units when recording
information about the provenance of objects ("metalworking tools from
Little Potton"). They are central to much genealogical research.
What do others think? Out of scope?
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] Issue 334 Homework
Dear Oeyvind, What about:"”This class comprises beliefs in the correct reading or scholarly interpretation of the overt message intended by an instance of E73 Information Object (“source”), which is either taken to be obvious in its original linguistic form or has been reformulated by the reader for better clarification, for instance as a set of formal propositions.” best, martin On 5/15/2018 6:39 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote: It is assigned to the Oyvind to investigate if it could expressed the following phrase without the use of the term “unambiguously” in the scope note of I9 Citation : “in which the interpretation of the source is formulated as a set of formal propositions or regarded to be unambiguously given in a natural language form.” Suggested new first sentence: ”This class comprises beliefs in the correct reading or scholarly interpretation of the overt message intended by an instance of E73 Information Object (“source”), in which the interpretation of the source is clearly expressed, for instance in the form of a set of formal propositions.” Original scope note: I9 Citation Subclass of: I8 Conviction Superclass of: Scope note: This class comprises beliefs in the correct reading or scholarly interpretation of the overt message intended by an instance of E73 Information Object (“source”), in which the interpretation of the source is formulated as a set of formal propositions or regarded to be unambiguously given in a natural language form. An instance of I9 Citation implies believing the authenticity of the respective instance of E73 Information Object relative to an explicitly stated provenance, but does not mean believing the respective propositions. Rather, the truth of the cited message is subject of another scholarly interpretation process. It further does not pertain to arguing about hidden or cryptic meanings of a source, which is subject of yet another scholarly interpretation process. ___ 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] Administrative units
Dear Richard
the case you describe clearly belongs to the category of “fiat spatial objects”
as defined by Smith and Varzi, as opposed to “bona fide spatial objects” i.e.
common physical objects. Smith & Varzi introduce this concept in several papers
of theirs - I am sending you, separately, a copy of one of these papers - i.e.,
loosely speaking, objects defined by artificial rules such as a law, a treaty,
a cadaster definition, lines on a map etc. They remain fixed until some new
regulation or a natural event changes their boundary.
The latter is the case, for instance, of the Alps border between Italy and
Switzerland, which is currently being changed by global heating causing a large
glacier to melt, altering the border line. As a consequence this has “moved” a
mountain hut from Italy into Switzerland without any change in the border
treaties nor, of course, any physical removal of the hut. I believe that at
present the hut is partly in Italy and partly in Switzerland and it is slowly
"going abroad", so giving diplomats the time to rearrange the border definition
to keep into account the glacier change. People working in the hut have
jokingly asked if they should use their passport to go to the lavatory.
Apart from the above anecdote, fiat spatial objects are relatively stable in
time although they may change at intervals.
As such they are instances of E92 Spacetime Volume and have a 4-dimensional
nature, one dimension along time and three along space. I will also send you a
paper of mine with some suggestions on how to deal with this complexity in
simpler cases. In sum, a space-time volume is a blob in the 4-dimensional
space; if you like the image, E92 resemble a potato. Fiat spatial objects are a
sort of approximation to this, as they remain (relatively) constant in time,
with a possible discontinuity at fixed instants e.g. when a law (a treaty,
whatever) changes their border definition. This act “slices" the potato into
“cylinders”.
For example the USA is a fiat object (it is also a number of other things, but
that's another story). Ignoring small changes due to erosion of its coasts, it
did not change since August 21, 1959 when Hawaii became a State; the last
previous change being in January of the same year when Alaska was also
proclaimed a state. Although changes occur so slowly, there is no doubt that
they occur, and therefore make USA a Spacetime Volume.
Best regards
Franco
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
> Il giorno 15 mag 2018, alle ore 18:13, Richard Light
> ha scritto:
>
> Hi,
>
> Further to my previous question, and following a trawl through CRMgeo, I have
> another one. :-)
> How should one represent an administrative unit (such as Burgess Hill, being
> the entity which is managed by Burgess Hill Town Council) using the CRM?
> It's not a place (certainly not as defined in E53_Place); nor is it an
> E74_Group. It's the result of collective human actions and decisions.
> Administrative units have a temporal dimension, so should be a subclass of
> E7_Activity. They have physical extent (possibly changing over time). There
> are different types of administrative unit, some of which are specifically
> relevant to cultural heritage studies: registration districts; census
> 'pieces'.
> Administrative units are created, destroyed, merged with other administrative
> units, etc. They have relationships with other administrative units,
> both generic containment/adjacency ones, and also more specific 'administered
> by' ones.
>
> Many local museum collections cite administrative units when recording
> information about the provenance of objects ("metalworking tools from Little
> Potton"). They are central to much genealogical research.
>
> What do others think? Out of scope?
> Richard
> --
> Richard Light
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] Lyon meeting- agenda outline
Dear All You may find the outline of the agenda for the forthcoming meeting here http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/provisional%20agenda%20.pdf all the best Chryssoula -- --- Chryssoula Bekiari Research and Development Engineer Center for Cultural Informatics / Information Systems Laboratory Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR-700 13 Heraklion, Crete, Greece Phone: +30 2810 391631, Fax: +30 2810 391638, Skype: xrysmp E-mail: beki...@ics.forth.gr Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/index_main.php?l=e=231
[Crm-sig] Administrative units
Hi,
Further to my previous question, and following a trawl through CRMgeo, I
have another one. :-)
How should one represent an administrative unit (such as Burgess Hill,
being the entity which is managed by Burgess Hill Town Council) using
the CRM? It's not a place (certainly not as defined in E53_Place); nor
is it an E74_Group. It's the result of collective human actions and
decisions. Administrative units have a temporal dimension, so should be
a subclass of E7_Activity. They have physical extent (possibly changing
over time). There are different types of administrative unit, some of
which are specifically relevant to cultural heritage studies:
registration districts; census 'pieces'.
Administrative units are created, destroyed, merged with other
administrative units, etc. They have relationships with other
administrative units, both generic containment/adjacency ones, and also
more specific 'administered by' ones.
Many local museum collections cite administrative units when recording
information about the provenance of objects ("metalworking tools from
Little Potton"). They are central to much genealogical research.
What do others think? Out of scope?
Richard
--
*Richard Light*
[Crm-sig] Issue 334 Homework
> It is assigned to the Oyvind to investigate if it could expressed the > following phrase without the use of the term “unambiguously” in the scope > note of I9 Citation : “in which the interpretation of the source is > formulated as a set of formal propositions or regarded to be unambiguously > given in a natural language form.” Suggested new first sentence: ”This class comprises beliefs in the correct reading or scholarly interpretation of the overt message intended by an instance of E73 Information Object (“source”), in which the interpretation of the source is clearly expressed, for instance in the form of a set of formal propositions.” Original scope note: I9 Citation Subclass of: I8 Conviction Superclass of: Scope note:This class comprises beliefs in the correct reading or scholarly interpretation of the overt message intended by an instance of E73 Information Object (“source”), in which the interpretation of the source is formulated as a set of formal propositions or regarded to be unambiguously given in a natural language form. An instance of I9 Citation implies believing the authenticity of the respective instance of E73 Information Object relative to an explicitly stated provenance, but does not mean believing the respective propositions. Rather, the truth of the cited message is subject of another scholarly interpretation process. It further does not pertain to arguing about hidden or cryptic meanings of a source, which is subject of yet another scholarly interpretation process.
