[Crm-sig] CRMInf ISSUE: J2 concluded that

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

I wonder if the scope note of J2 concluded that should be:

Scope note:    " This property associates an instance of I2 Belief 
with the instance of I1 Argumentation that concluded it."


Or should be:

Scope note:    " This property associates an instance of I2 Belief 
with the instance of I1 Argumentation that concluded or confirmed it."


or if confirming a belief is a generalization of concluding a belief, a 
possible result of an Argument.


Note that any change of a belief value is a new belief.

We should discuss the logic of sharing beliefs.

Cheers,

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   |
--

Re: [Crm-sig] Parent of F4 Manifestation Singleton

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Oeyvind,

Well, I expressed just a more theoretical thought. There is a question 
of identity conditions: Is the product providing the identity to the 
activity, or the activity to the product? If the products are more 
loosely coupled such as multiple recordings, reviews etc., obviously the 
common identity they refer to is the activity experienced. If under my 
hands happens to be the keyboard of my laptop, and I package the product 
adequately, we tend to identify my writing by the produced text. 
Currently, neither CRM nor FRBR gives a good answer to a common view 
explaining the stages in between.


I consider here a more general concept of Expression than performance. I 
am not concerned if painting is performing, but that painting is an 
externalization of mental things as is theatre, singing and writing. I 
argue that causal to any art form and literature is first the 
brain-to-action process. This may or may not have a "self-contained 
form" and may or may not end up in persistent "self-contained" forms. 
Depending on the latter, I would like to be able to specialize down from 
the same overarching concept, let's call it "externalization", better 
than "expression" or "performance", which ultimately must comprise all 
signals externalized that may ever appear or are reflected in the 
products or by products or observations. I do not think that could be 
disputed.


When someone is writing ever on an unfinished work, such as 
Saint-Exupery's Citadelle, we may question if the unity and identity of 
action is better than the unity of the text...


I am just thinking if we may need at some time such a general concept, a 
nd what its limitations would be.


Cheers,

Martin


On 9/18/2018 3:19 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
Well, performances are usually not part of library or museum 
collections. The theatre museums I have worked with collect artefacts, 
texts, stage models etc. etc. but not performances. They do collect 
traces of performances though: reviews, programmes, posters, stage 
drawings, costumes, video recordings etc.


But once an information system is created the performances find their 
natural place there. As they do in CRM and FRBR.


Another thing is the performative aspects of art forms traditionally 
not seen as performative, such as literature. As far as I know this is 
still a disputed area.


All the best,

Øyvind

Am 18.09.2018 um 11:54 schrieb Martin Doerr >:


Dear George,

How nice!

I believe the concept of "Expression" as something permanent, i.e., 
the FRBR concept of it, actually confuses the problem. "Expression" 
is to my understanding a process, an activity, and only in a second 
meaning the product. I do not see any difference to lots of best 
singers of the world performing in their bath rooms.


What is the point in knowing the absolutely greatest work of art? A 
Zen master was asked what the most valuable thing in the world is. He 
answered: the head of a dead cat. Why? because nobody would give a 
price for it...;-)


We have discussed the "Expression Creation", the actually genuine 
Expression, as a process of externalization, and attempt to 
communicate something.  I'd say  things become culturally relevant by 
their social impact, and that is what we document.


If we would generalize over that, the result of an "Expression 
Creation" would be anything left on another carrier, be it in the 
heart of an audience, or on paper, or any other form. If the identity 
condition of such an Expression Creation is in the intention, 
carriers lost in the process as in your example would qualify. On the 
other side, if someone is eavesdropping on the bathroom song, we may 
even then talk of an Expression, or? Then, the "creation" part is 
more specific, and may be incidental or accidentally flawed.


Anyway, I think this view would greatly simplify things.

Cheers,

Martin



On 9/17/2018 10:49 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
I had this reference in mind, which I’ve been looking for for a long 
time:


https://books.google.gr/books?id=8Nbqn-7RKpYC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=woolfe+artist+napkin+water+painted+word&source=bl&ots=NLFB8BL-w9&sig=7HX0xB1GSR_l9D6TgsSKRCFoHyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicu8WI58LdAhURaVAKHWZKBmoQ6AEwFXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=woolfe%20artist%20napkin%20water%20painted%20word&f=false



--
Dr. George Bruseker
R & D Engineer

Centre for Cultural Informatics
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
Science and Technology Park of Crete
Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Tel.: +30 2810 391619   Fax: +30 2810 391638 E-mail: 
bruse...@ics.forth.gr 

URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

On Sep 17, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Martin Doerr > wrote:


On 9/16/2018 3:49 PM, George Bruseker wrote:

Hi Thanasis,

Yes I would take it that that was the intention of the authors. 
Scribbli

Re: [Crm-sig] Question about CRMArcheo and its completion

[Achille Felicetti]

Dear Franco,

Sure :-))

Done!
A.

> Il giorno 18 set 2018, alle ore 15:04, Franco Niccolucci 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Achille, 
> 
> maybe you have a more recent draft version - the one being reviewed by Steve 
> for some time now - which might be more useful to Christian-Emil than the 
> outdated one publicly available. If so, you could send it directly to him 
> (and not to the list).
> 
> Franco
> 
> Prof. Franco Niccolucci
> Director, VAST-LAB
> PIN - U. of Florence
> Scientific Coordinator
> ARIADNE - ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS
> Editor-in-Chief
> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
> 
> Piazza Ciardi 25
> 59100 Prato, Italy
> 
>> Il giorno 18 set 2018, alle ore 14:51, Achille Felicetti 
>>  ha scritto:
>> 
>> Dear Christian-Emil,
>> 
>> As you might have guessed, CMRarchaeo’s documentation is still a work in 
>> progress and many efforts are currently taking place to improve and finalise 
>> it. In particular, version 1.4.5 has already been extended with new real 
>> cases and examples, and many scope notes have been revised and discussed 
>> during one of last SIGs and added to the document.
>> 
>> Steve is kindly revising latest version of the document and we are waiting 
>> for him to release it in order to publish it on CIDOC-CRM website and move 
>> forward towards next revision steps.
>> 
>> In parallel, we are also working on scope notes for properties and on 
>> revising superproperties, which are still missing in current version.
>> 
>> It would be a pleasure for us if you would like to join the team and help us 
>> in improving CRMarchaeo documentation: all your reviews and comments could 
>> be sent directly to me.
>> 
>> Thank you for reporting on this task.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Achille
>> 
>>> Il giorno 18 set 2018, alle ore 13:21, Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
>>>  ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> I participate in an archeological infrastructure project (financed by the 
>>> Norwegian Research Council) for data from archaeological excavations in 
>>> Norway. The objectives is to link datasets form excavations, museum 
>>> collections and archives. My task is to plan the use of CIDOC-CRM and 
>>> possibly CRMArcheo as semantic glue.
>>> 
>>> In Norway the Swedish system Intrasis  (http://www.intrasis.com/) is a de 
>>> facto standard and most excavations use the same template.
>>> 
>>> My assumption is that the information in an intrasis-instance can easily be 
>>> mapped to CRM/CRMArcheo.  To verify this I have started a close reading of 
>>> CRMArcheo. To my surprise, the CRMArcheo( 1.4.5) is more unfinished than I 
>>> had got the impression of. I will not go in detail here, just mention a few 
>>> deficits; Properties Ap8 to AP21 have no examples. Scope note of A6 is 
>>> formulated as one single sentence 9 lines long and not ending in a full 
>>> stop. Many examples refer to illustrations in literature,  a few are shown 
>>> in the beginning but the rest can only be found in the literature
>>> 
>>> Is there a CRMArcheo team I can send my review?
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Christian-Emil​
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] Question about CRMArcheo and its completion

[Franco Niccolucci]

Achille, 

maybe you have a more recent draft version - the one being reviewed by Steve 
for some time now - which might be more useful to Christian-Emil than the 
outdated one publicly available. If so, you could send it directly to him (and 
not to the list).

Franco

Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS
Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy

> Il giorno 18 set 2018, alle ore 14:51, Achille Felicetti 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Dear Christian-Emil,
> 
> As you might have guessed, CMRarchaeo’s documentation is still a work in 
> progress and many efforts are currently taking place to improve and finalise 
> it. In particular, version 1.4.5 has already been extended with new real 
> cases and examples, and many scope notes have been revised and discussed 
> during one of last SIGs and added to the document.
> 
> Steve is kindly revising latest version of the document and we are waiting 
> for him to release it in order to publish it on CIDOC-CRM website and move 
> forward towards next revision steps.
> 
> In parallel, we are also working on scope notes for properties and on 
> revising superproperties, which are still missing in current version.
> 
> It would be a pleasure for us if you would like to join the team and help us 
> in improving CRMarchaeo documentation: all your reviews and comments could be 
> sent directly to me.
> 
> Thank you for reporting on this task.
> 
> Best regards,
> Achille
> 
>> Il giorno 18 set 2018, alle ore 13:21, Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
>>  ha scritto:
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> I participate in an archeological infrastructure project (financed by the 
>> Norwegian Research Council) for data from archaeological excavations in 
>> Norway. The objectives is to link datasets form excavations, museum 
>> collections and archives. My task is to plan the use of CIDOC-CRM and 
>> possibly CRMArcheo as semantic glue.
>>  
>> In Norway the Swedish system Intrasis  (http://www.intrasis.com/) is a de 
>> facto standard and most excavations use the same template.
>>  
>> My assumption is that the information in an intrasis-instance can easily be 
>> mapped to CRM/CRMArcheo.  To verify this I have started a close reading of 
>> CRMArcheo. To my surprise, the CRMArcheo( 1.4.5) is more unfinished than I 
>> had got the impression of. I will not go in detail here, just mention a few 
>> deficits; Properties Ap8 to AP21 have no examples. Scope note of A6 is 
>> formulated as one single sentence 9 lines long and not ending in a full 
>> stop. Many examples refer to illustrations in literature,  a few are shown 
>> in the beginning but the rest can only be found in the literature
>>  
>> Is there a CRMArcheo team I can send my review?
>>  
>> Best,
>> Christian-Emil​
>> 
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Question about CRMArcheo and its completion

[Achille Felicetti]

Dear Christian-Emil,

As you might have guessed, CMRarchaeo’s documentation is still a work in 
progress and many efforts are currently taking place to improve and finalise 
it. In particular, version 1.4.5 has already been extended with new real cases 
and examples, and many scope notes have been revised and discussed during one 
of last SIGs and added to the document.

Steve is kindly revising latest version of the document and we are waiting for 
him to release it in order to publish it on CIDOC-CRM website and move forward 
towards next revision steps.

In parallel, we are also working on scope notes for properties and on revising 
superproperties, which are still missing in current version.

It would be a pleasure for us if you would like to join the team and help us in 
improving CRMarchaeo documentation: all your reviews and comments could be sent 
directly to me.

Thank you for reporting on this task.

Best regards,
Achille

> Il giorno 18 set 2018, alle ore 13:21, Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> I participate in an archeological infrastructure project (financed by the 
> Norwegian Research Council) for data from archaeological excavations in 
> Norway. The objectives is to link datasets form excavations, museum 
> collections and archives. My task is to plan the use of CIDOC-CRM and 
> possibly CRMArcheo as semantic glue.
>  
> In Norway the Swedish system Intrasis  (http://www.intrasis.com/ 
> ) is a de facto standard and most excavations use 
> the same template.
>  
> My assumption is that the information in an intrasis-instance can easily be 
> mapped to CRM/CRMArcheo.  To verify this I have started a close reading of 
> CRMArcheo. To my surprise, the CRMArcheo( 1.4.5) is more unfinished than I 
> had got the impression of. I will not go in detail here, just mention a few 
> deficits; Properties Ap8 to AP21 have no examples. Scope note of A6 is 
> formulated as one single sentence 9 lines long and not ending in a full stop. 
> Many examples refer to illustrations in literature,  a few are shown in the 
> beginning but the rest can only be found in the literature
>  
> Is there a CRMArcheo team I can send my review?
>  
> Best,
> Christian-Emil​
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr 
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig 
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] Parent of F4 Manifestation Singleton

[Øyvind Eide]

Well, performances are usually not part of library or museum collections. The 
theatre museums I have worked with collect artefacts, texts, stage models etc. 
etc. but not performances. They do collect traces of performances though: 
reviews, programmes, posters, stage drawings, costumes, video recordings etc.

But once an information system is created the performances find their natural 
place there. As they do in CRM and FRBR. 

Another thing is the performative aspects of art forms traditionally not seen 
as performative, such as literature. As far as I know this is still a disputed 
area. 

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 18.09.2018 um 11:54 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear George,
> 
> How nice! 
> 
> I believe the concept of "Expression" as something permanent, i.e., the FRBR 
> concept of it, actually confuses the problem. "Expression" is to my 
> understanding a process, an activity, and only in a second meaning the 
> product. I do not see any difference to lots of best singers of the world 
> performing in their bath rooms. 
> 
> What is the point in knowing the absolutely greatest work of art? A Zen 
> master was asked what the most valuable thing in the world is. He answered: 
> the head of a dead cat. Why? because nobody would give a price for it...;-)
> 
> We have discussed the "Expression Creation", the actually genuine Expression, 
> as a process of externalization, and attempt to communicate something.  I'd 
> say  things become culturally relevant by their social impact, and that is 
> what we document.
> 
> If we would generalize over that, the result of an "Expression Creation" 
> would be anything left on another carrier, be it in the heart of an audience, 
> or on paper, or any other form. If the identity condition of such an 
> Expression Creation is in the intention, carriers lost in the process as in 
> your example would qualify. On the other side, if someone is eavesdropping on 
> the bathroom song, we may even then talk of an Expression, or? Then, the 
> "creation" part is more specific, and may be incidental or accidentally 
> flawed.
> 
> Anyway, I think this view would greatly simplify things.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/17/2018 10:49 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
>> I had this reference in mind, which I’ve been looking for for a long time:
>> 
>> https://books.google.gr/books?id=8Nbqn-7RKpYC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=woolfe+artist+napkin+water+painted+word&source=bl&ots=NLFB8BL-w9&sig=7HX0xB1GSR_l9D6TgsSKRCFoHyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicu8WI58LdAhURaVAKHWZKBmoQ6AEwFXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=woolfe%20artist%20napkin%20water%20painted%20word&f=false
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. George Bruseker
>> R & D Engineer
>> 
>> Centre for Cultural Informatics
>> Institute of Computer Science
>> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
>> Science and Technology Park of Crete
>> Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
>> 
>> Tel.: +30 2810 391619   Fax: +30 2810 391638   E-mail: bruse...@ics.forth.gr 
>> 
>> URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl 
>> 
>>> On Sep 17, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Martin Doerr >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 9/16/2018 3:49 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
 Hi Thanasis,
 
 Yes I would take it that that was the intention of the authors. Scribbling 
 your master piece in water on the back of a torn napkin or so. So I would 
 agree that the language should probably change to reflect that.
>>> Indeed, there are lots of inscriptions, texts written in notebooks etc. 
>>> Need not be so exotic. Probably many manuscripts are not exclusive to one 
>>> carrier.
>>> 
>>> But we have to check if in LRMoo it is already obsolete.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Martin
 
 Cheers,
 
 George
 
 
 --
 Dr. George Bruseker
 R & D Engineer
 
 Centre for Cultural Informatics
 Institute of Computer Science
 Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
 Science and Technology Park of Crete
 Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
 
 Tel.: +30 2810 391619   Fax: +30 2810 391638   E-mail: 
 bruse...@ics.forth.gr 
 URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl 
 
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Athanasios Velios  > wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I looked through the mailing list archive but could not find an answer 
> for:
> 
> Why is F4 Manifestation Singleton a 

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: symbolic content

[Richard Light]

Right, so we are defining a new CRM property, with domain E90 Symbolic Object 
and range E62 String.  Agreed?  I suggest that we call it "Pxxx has string 
value" to make its purpose clearer.

E62 String is defined more widely than the strings we are currently 
considering: it includes "bitmaps, vector graphics, etc.".  Is this a matter of 
concern?  My own initial thought is that the scope note for Pxxx in the CRM 
document should be as generic as the definition of E62, so they are mutually 
compatible, something like:

This property contains the symbolic content of the Symbolic Object, expressed 
as an E62 String.  The "level of symbolic specificity" by which the String is 
interpreted should conform to the type of the Symbolic Object.

Then we could have Rob's examples.

Once this simple property is in place in the CRM, we can update the RDF 
implementation guidelines to indicate that in the RDF environment we represent 
the E62 String values, which are the object of a Pxxx_has_string_value 
property/predicate, as a subclass of rdf:value.

Or ... maybe we might choose another RDF(S) property.  I forget the details of 
our previous discussions, but there is rdfs:Literal and rdfs:langString, either 
of which we could use.  Ideally, we should in general choose RDF 
implementations which conform nicely to our abstract distinction between E60 
Number, E61 Time Primitive and E62 String.

I'm keen that we resolve the simple case of string values, because I think that 
will solve 90+% of our users' actual needs.  However, I'm equally keen that we 
don't do it in a way which makes it harder to deal with bitmaps, graphics, and 
indeed more complex values such as measurements (e.g. 3' 6") in RDF.

Thanks,

Richard

On 14/09/2018 18:23, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear All,

I propose a new property of Symbolic Object : "has symbolic content : String" , 
in RDFS subproperty of rdfs:value.

The "level of symbolic specificity" by which the String is interpreted should 
conform to the type of the Symbolic Object.

Best,

Martin

On 9/14/2018 7:54 PM, Richard Light wrote:

On 13/09/2018 20:57, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear Richard,

What we need, to my opinion, is a property of Symbolic Object we may call it 
"has symbolic content" or "has symbolic content inline" or anything better, 
which defines that the symbolic content is identical to the Literal, abstracted 
to the "level of symbolic specificity" that the Literal implies and that 
conforms to the identity condition of the Symbolic Object, i.e., characters of 
a certain script, or whatever. That would make the meaning of the "value" 
unambiguous.
Again, I'm in complete agreement with this line of thought.  One decision we 
should make is whether this property forms part of the generic CRM framework, 
or if it is to be an implementation-specific property which only appears in our 
RDF implementation of the CRM.  My instinct is for it to go into the CRM 
proper: the treatment of Symbolic Object and its subclasses would I think be 
made clearer by the addition of this property.
For CRM proper!
OK: perhaps we should start a new issue to address this?


--
--
 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

[Crm-sig] Question about CRMArcheo and its completion

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

Dear all,

I participate in an archeological infrastructure project (financed by the 
Norwegian Research Council) for data from archaeological excavations in Norway. 
The objectives is to link datasets form excavations, museum collections and 
archives. My task is to plan the use of CIDOC-CRM and possibly CRMArcheo as 
semantic glue.



In Norway the Swedish system Intrasis  (http://www.intrasis.com/) is a de facto 
standard and most excavations use the same template.



My assumption is that the information in an intrasis-instance can easily be 
mapped to CRM/CRMArcheo.  To verify this I have started a close reading of 
CRMArcheo. To my surprise, the CRMArcheo( 1.4.5) is more unfinished than I had 
got the impression of. I will not go in detail here, just mention a few 
deficits; Properties Ap8 to AP21 have no examples. Scope note of A6 is 
formulated as one single sentence 9 lines long and not ending in a full stop. 
Many examples refer to illustrations in literature,  a few are shown in the 
beginning but the rest can only be found in the literature



Is there a CRMArcheo team I can send my review?



Best,

Christian-Emil?

Re: [Crm-sig] Parent of F4 Manifestation Singleton

[Martin Doerr]

Dear George,

How nice!

I believe the concept of "Expression" as something permanent, i.e., the 
FRBR concept of it, actually confuses the problem. "Expression" is to my 
understanding a process, an activity, and only in a second meaning the 
product. I do not see any difference to lots of best singers of the 
world performing in their bath rooms.


What is the point in knowing the absolutely greatest work of art? A Zen 
master was asked what the most valuable thing in the world is. He 
answered: the head of a dead cat. Why? because nobody would give a price 
for it...;-)


We have discussed the "Expression Creation", the actually genuine 
Expression, as a process of externalization, and attempt to communicate 
something.  I'd say  things become culturally relevant by their social 
impact, and that is what we document.


If we would generalize over that, the result of an "Expression Creation" 
would be anything left on another carrier, be it in the heart of an 
audience, or on paper, or any other form. If the identity condition of 
such an Expression Creation is in the intention, carriers lost in the 
process as in your example would qualify. On the other side, if someone 
is eavesdropping on the bathroom song, we may even then talk of an 
Expression, or? Then, the "creation" part is more specific, and may be 
incidental or accidentally flawed.


Anyway, I think this view would greatly simplify things.

Cheers,

Martin



On 9/17/2018 10:49 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
I had this reference in mind, which I’ve been looking for for a long 
time:


https://books.google.gr/books?id=8Nbqn-7RKpYC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=woolfe+artist+napkin+water+painted+word&source=bl&ots=NLFB8BL-w9&sig=7HX0xB1GSR_l9D6TgsSKRCFoHyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicu8WI58LdAhURaVAKHWZKBmoQ6AEwFXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=woolfe%20artist%20napkin%20water%20painted%20word&f=false



--
Dr. George Bruseker
R & D Engineer

Centre for Cultural Informatics
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
Science and Technology Park of Crete
Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Tel.: +30 2810 391619   Fax: +30 2810 391638 E-mail: 
bruse...@ics.forth.gr 

URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

On Sep 17, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Martin Doerr > wrote:


On 9/16/2018 3:49 PM, George Bruseker wrote:

Hi Thanasis,

Yes I would take it that that was the intention of the authors. 
Scribbling your master piece in water on the back of a torn napkin 
or so. So I would agree that the language should probably change to 
reflect that.
Indeed, there are lots of inscriptions, texts written in notebooks 
etc. Need not be so exotic. Probably many manuscripts are not 
exclusive to one carrier.


But we have to check if in LRMoo it is already obsolete.

Cheers,

Martin


Cheers,

George


--
Dr. George Bruseker
R & D Engineer

Centre for Cultural Informatics
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
Science and Technology Park of Crete
Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Tel.: +30 2810 391619   Fax: +30 2810 391638 E-mail: 
bruse...@ics.forth.gr 

URL:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

On Sep 10, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Athanasios Velios > wrote:


Dear all,

I looked through the mailing list archive but could not find an 
answer for:


Why is F4 Manifestation Singleton a child of E24 and not a child of 
E22?


Its scope note starts with: "This class comprises physical objects..."
and we are always talking about a carrier. Are there any examples of
features-carriers that I can't think of? If, when scratching a poem 
on a

rocky mountain, the mountain is considered a carrier, then I think we
should update the scope note to reflect that.

All the best,

Thanasis
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the 
addressee and may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this email and/or its attachments you 
must not take any action based upon them and you must not copy or 
show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and 
immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where 
this email is unrelated to the business of University of the Arts 
London or of any of its group companies the opinions expressed in 
it are the opinions of the sender and do not necessarily constitute 
those of University of the Arts London (or the relevant group 
company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the email is 
sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also 
applies: UAL Short Courses Limited is a company registered in 
England and Wales under company number 02361261. Registered Office: 
University of the Arts London, 272 High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY


_

Re: [Crm-sig] Parent of F4 Manifestation Singleton

[Athanasios Velios]

LRM-E4 Manifestation is talking about sets of "carriers" which I think
is fine. LRM-E5 Item is defined as:

"An object or objects carrying signs intended to convey intellectual or
artistic content."

which may be problematic, especially when the scope note refers to a
"portion of the disk" for digital items. Maybe change "object" to
"physical thing" or "physical entity" or simply "objects or parts of
objects"?

FRBRoo proposal:

Scope note of F4 Manifestation Singleton to change from:

"This class comprises physical objects that each carry an..."

to:

"This class comprises instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing that each
carry an..."

All the best,

Thanasis

On 17/09/2018 19:10, Martin Doerr wrote:

On 9/16/2018 3:49 PM, George Bruseker wrote:

Hi Thanasis,

Yes I would take it that that was the intention of the authors.
Scribbling your master piece in water on the back of a torn napkin or
so. So I would agree that the language should probably change to
reflect that.

Indeed, there are lots of inscriptions, texts written in notebooks etc.
Need not be so exotic. Probably many manuscripts are not exclusive to
one carrier.

But we have to check if in LRMoo it is already obsolete.

Cheers,

Martin


Cheers,

George


--
Dr. George Bruseker
R & D Engineer

Centre for Cultural Informatics
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
Science and Technology Park of Crete
Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Tel.: +30 2810 391619   Fax: +30 2810 391638 E-mail:
bruse...@ics.forth.gr 
URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl


On Sep 10, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Athanasios Velios mailto:a.vel...@arts.ac.uk>> wrote:

Dear all,

I looked through the mailing list archive but could not find an
answer for:

Why is F4 Manifestation Singleton a child of E24 and not a child of E22?

Its scope note starts with: "This class comprises physical objects..."
and we are always talking about a carrier. Are there any examples of
features-carriers that I can't think of? If, when scratching a poem on a
rocky mountain, the mountain is considered a carrier, then I think we
should update the scope note to reflect that.

All the best,

Thanasis
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient of this email and/or its attachments you must not take any
action based upon them and you must not copy or show them to anyone.
Please send the email back to us and immediately and permanently
delete it and its attachments. Where this email is unrelated to the
business of University of the Arts London or of any of its group
companies the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender
and do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts
London (or the relevant group company). Where the sender's signature
indicates that the email is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses
Limited the following also applies: UAL Short Courses Limited is a
company registered in England and Wales under company number
02361261. Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272 High
Holborn, London WC1V 7EY

___
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  |  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


This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may 
contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based upon them and 
you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us a

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: symbolic content

[Nicola Carboni]

Dear Martin, 

I can confirm that having symbolic content as subclass of rdf:value would 
incredibly help!!

Best, 

Nicola










> On 17 Sep 2018, at 21:38, Robert Sanderson  wrote:
> 
>  
> Examples I have a lot of!
>  
>  
> How about …
>  
> * The materials description (E33) of the painting (E22)  _has symbolic 
> content_ “Oil, French Watercolors on Paper, Graphite and Ink on Canvas, with 
> an Oak frame.”
> * The title (E35) of Einstein’s 1915 text (E73) _has symbolic content_ 
> “Relativity, the Special and the General Theory“
> * The story of Little Red Riding Hood (E33) _has symbolic content_ “Once upon 
> a time there lived in a certain village …”
> * The inscription (E34) on Rijksmuseum object SK-A-1601 (E22) _has symbolic 
> content_ “B”
>
> Rob
>  
>  
> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Richard Light 
> 
> Date: Monday, September 17, 2018 at 12:09 PM
> To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: symbolic content
>  
> Rob,
> 
> Absolutely.  So now we need to draft the text to describe this property, in 
> suitably generalized terms, for the CRM, and then update our RDF 
> documentation to say exactly how it is to be used in that context.  Perhaps 
> we should start with some examples?
> 
> Richard
> 
> On 17/09/2018 19:49, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> 
>  
> Thank you, Martin! I think this is exactly what we need ☺
>  
> Rob
>  
> From: Crm-sig  
>  on behalf of Martin Doerr 
>  
> Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 10:23 AM
> To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr"  
>  
> Subject: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: symbolic content
>  
> Dear All,
> 
> I propose a new property of Symbolic Object : "has symbolic content : String" 
> , in RDFS subproperty of rdfs:value.
> 
> The "level of symbolic specificity" by which the String is interpreted should 
> conform to the type of the Symbolic Object.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 9/14/2018 7:54 PM, Richard Light wrote:
>  
> On 13/09/2018 20:57, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear Richard,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we need, to my opinion, is a property of Symbolic Object we may call it 
> "has symbolic content" or "has symbolic content inline" or anything better, 
> which defines that the symbolic content is identical to the Literal, 
> abstracted to the "level of symbolic specificity" that the Literal implies 
> and that conforms to the identity condition of the Symbolic Object, i.e., 
> characters of a certain script, or whatever. That would make the meaning of 
> the "value" unambiguous.
> Again, I'm in complete agreement with this line of thought.  One decision we 
> should make is whether this property forms part of the generic CRM framework, 
> or if it is to be an implementation-specific property which only appears in 
> our RDF implementation of the CRM.  My instinct is for it to go into the CRM 
> proper: the treatment of Symbolic Object and its subclasses would I think be 
> made clearer by the addition of this property.
> For CRM proper!
> OK: perhaps we should start a new issue to address this?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
>  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
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig