Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Christian-Emil

Achille may know better, but finds are described as objects embedded in 
Stratigraphic Units (A7 Embedding).


Best,

Martin


On 11/6/2018 7:55 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:


Sorry for the typos and generally confusing text. Here is a hopefully  
a better text:



AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
Domain:A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Range:A8 Stratigraphic Unit

My issue was about finds as objects. That, how do one model physical 
relations between finds (and also modern objects like the pipe). Can a 
find be both an object and an A8 Stratigraphic Unit​? Double 
instanciation? The find being an instance of A8 Stratigraphic Unit​ as 
long as it is not moved?


Best
Christian-Emil





*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of 
Christian-Emil Smith Ore 

*Sent:* 06 November 2018 16:19
*To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo

Dear all,

I am working on a mapping from Norwegian excavation databases to 
CRM/CRMarcheo. The sets use relations like over/under between layers 
and other A8 Stratigraphic Units.  A question: Can a find be modeled 
as an instance of A11 and what about a modern drainage pipe/ditch?



Best,

Christian-Emil




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



--

 Dr. Martin Doerr

 Honorary Head of the
 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

 Vox:+30(2810)391625
 Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 383 Homework

[Robert Sanderson]

Thank you for pushing this forward, Martin!

Quantification wise, I would be in favor of 0,1 : 0,1.

If the structure of the set of symbols changed, then it would be a different 
symbolic object according to my understanding of E90:

>  … identifiable symbols and any aggregation of symbols …  that have an 
> objectively recognizable structure and
that are documented as single units.

Similarly, if the same string was used by different Symbolic Objects, then it 
seems like they would actually be the same symbolic object (or you would 
instead use two strings with the same data).
(And in the RDF projection this makes no difference, as literal values do not 
have their own separate identity)

For the examples, I would replace the Little Red Riding Hood example with one 
that is complete, to avoid confusion with the scope note requirement of being 
represented completely.
How about:

>  The Accession Number (E42) of the J. Paul Getty Museum’s “Abduction of 
> Europa” (E22) _has symbolic content_ “95.PB.7“


And for the file question, do you mean that the symbolic object is the MS Word 
file, which has a representable set of (binary) symbols, or that the symbolic 
object is text which is incorporated within the file, but not verbatim (as the 
characters in the (e.g.) paragraph are likely to be represented in the file 
using very a different structure).

Rob


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 6:46 AM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" , Chrysoula Bekiari 

Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue 383 Homework

Dear All,

I had sent the below as new issue, but it is indeed the answer to Issue 383.

The question is, how to deal with a file, which is more specific in content, 
such as an MS Word, but represents the character sequence that defines the 
content of the respective E90. Is is "is incorporated in", or a subproperty of 
it?

On 9/19/2018 11:09 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
Here my scope note:


Pxxx has symbolic content
Domain:  E90 Symbolic Object
Range: E62 String
Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) ??
 In CRM RDFS   subproperty of: rdfs:value



Scope note:  This property associates  an instance of E90 Symbolic Object 
with a complete, identifying representation of its content in the form of an 
instance of E62 String. This property only applies to instances of E90 Symbolic 
Object that can be represented completely in this form. The representation may 
be more specific than the symbolic level defining the identity condition of the 
represented. This depends on the type of the symbolic object represented. For 
instance, if a name has type "Modern Greek character sequence", it may be 
represented in a loss-free Latin transcription, meaning however the sequence of 
Greek letters. As another example, if the represented object has type "English 
words sequence", American English or British English spelling variants may be 
chosen to represent the English word "colour" without defining a different 
symbolic object. If a name has type "European traditional name", no particular 
string may define its content.


Examples:

* 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”



On 9/17/2018 10:38 PM, 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

Sorry for the typos and generally confusing text. Here is a hopefully  a better 
text:


AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
Domain: A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Range: A8 Stratigraphic Unit

My issue was about finds as objects. That, how do one model physical relations 
between finds (and also modern objects like the pipe). Can a find be both an 
object and an A8 Stratigraphic Unit?? Double instanciation? The find being an 
instance of  A8 Stratigraphic Unit? as long as it is not moved?

Best
Christian-Emil







From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Christian-Emil Smith 
Ore 
Sent: 06 November 2018 16:19
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo


Dear all,

I am working on a mapping from Norwegian excavation databases to CRM/CRMarcheo. 
The sets use relations like over/under between layers and other A8 
Stratigraphic  Units.  A question: Can a find be modeled as an instance of A11 
and what about a modern drainage pipe/ditch?


Best,

Christian-Emil

[Crm-sig] CRMarcheo

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

Dear all,

I am working on a mapping from Norwegian excavation databases to CRM/CRMarcheo. 
The sets use relations like over/under between layers and other A8 
Stratigraphic  Units.  A question: Can a find be modeled as an instance of A11 
and what about a modern drainage pipe/ditch?


Best,

Christian-Emil

[Crm-sig] Issue 383 Homework

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

I had sent the below as new issue, but it is indeed the answer to Issue 383.

The question is, how to deal with a file, which is more specific in 
content, such as an MS Word, but represents the character sequence that 
defines the content of the respective E90. Is is "is incorporated in", 
or a subproperty of it?


On 9/19/2018 11:09 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:

Here my scope note:


  Pxxx has symbolic content

Domain: E90 Symbolic Object
<#_E2_Temporal_Entity>

Range:E62 String

Quantification:many to many (0,n:0,n) ??


 In CRM RDFS   subproperty of: rdfs:value


Scope note:This property associates  an instance of E90 Symbolic 
Object with a complete, identifying representation of its content in 
the form of an instance of E62 String. This property only applies to 
instances of E90 Symbolic Object that can be represented completely in 
this form. The representation may be more specific than the symbolic 
level defining the identity condition of the represented. This depends 
on the type of the symbolic object represented. For instance, if a 
name has type "Modern Greek character sequence", it may be represented 
in a loss-free Latin transcription, meaning however the sequence of 
Greek letters. As another example, if the represented object has type 
"English words sequence", American English or British English spelling 
variants may be chosen to represent the English word "colour" without 
defining a different symbolic object. If a name has type "European 
traditional name", no particular string may define its content.



Examples:


* 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”




On 9/17/2018 10:38 PM, 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

[Crm-sig] Berlin SIG Attendance Confirmation 27-30 Nov, 2018

[George Bruseker]

Dear all,

The dates for Berlin are, of course, set, and we already have a doodle where 
people have indicated their availability/attendance. If you are planning to 
come to the SIG and you have not filled this out yet, please take a moment to 
click in what days you will be there. 

Best,

George

> https://doodle.com/poll/f5fdwkquq5fefg37 
> 


--
Dr. George Bruseker
Coordinator

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