Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE proposal to replace E18 isa E92 and E4 isa E92 with properties

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

​This is the list of properties with STV as domain or range and their sub 
properties. The task will be to check the meaning of these properties  when the 
domain and range are moved down the class hierarchy. Since we keep the long 
paths via STVs, it seems to be a question of (re)establish properies as 
shortcuts of the long STV-based paths.


P132overlaps with   E92 Spacetime VolumeE92 Spacetime Volume
P9 -   consists of (forms part of)  E4 Period   E4 Period
P10-   falls within (contains)  E92 Spacetime VolumeE92 Spacetime 
Volume
P166   -   -   was a presence of (had presence) E93 PresenceE92 
Spacetime Volume
P46-   is composed of (forms part of)   E18 Physical Thing  E18 
Physical Thing
P56-  -   bears feature (is found on)   E19 Physical Object 
E26 Physical Feature
P133is separated from   E92 Spacetime VolumeE92 Spacetime Volume
P160has temporal projection E92 Spacetime VolumeE52 Time-Span
P164   -during (was time-span of)   E93 PresenceE52 Time Span
P161has spatial projection  E92 Spacetime VolumeE53 Place
P156   -   occupies E18 Physical Thing  E53 Place
P167was at(was place of)E93 PresenceE53 Place
P168Place is defined by (defines place) E53 Place   E94 Space 
primitive
P169defines spacetime volume (spacetime volume is defined by)   E95 
Spacetime Primitive E92 Spacetime Volume



Table 1 Properties with STV as domain or range and their sub properties.



From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Sent: 16 October 2019 20:26
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE proposal to replace E18 isa E92 and E4 isa E92 
with properties

Dear Christian-Emil, all,

This is a very good start.
In order to understand the problem, we need to have an overview of all 
properties inherited from STV, those raised to STV, and see the long-paths that 
will be consequence of the indirection, as well as ambiguities of choices of 
representation in time and space for those properties we have merged after the 
IsA.

All the best,

Martin

On 10/15/2019 11:11 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:

Dear all,

This email describes the issue of replacing the  E18 isa E92 Spacetime volume  
and E4 isa E92 Spacetime volume with properties. The main reason to do so is  
based on the observation that for most of the (potential) users of CRM it is 
too abstract to identify a thing with its spacetime volume.


Below I start with a soft introduction and then present the issue(s). I have 
given links to documents which can be downloaded. These are ppt with 4 possible 
cases (case 3 is what is suggested) and  concordance of the phrase “spacetime 
volume” in the CRM document.


 ppt: http://www.edd.uio.no/nedlasting/cidoc-crm/STV_suggested_changes.ppt

concordance: 
http://www.edd.uio.no/nedlasting/cidoc-crm/kwic_spacetime_volume.txt​


Best,

Christian-Emil





The concept of spacetime volume is taken from physics. The idea is intuitive.  
Every physical thing has a volume, that is, occupies space (check your 
cupboard).  When a cup is moved  in the kitchen its volume will move relative 
to the kitchen floor and walls. Its place in the kitchen will depend on the 
time of the day. If the cup’s movement is registered in a 3D model, say every 
second , its whereabouts will look like some strange geometric figure. If the 
cups movement from it production to it is broken beyond recognition by a 
steamroller, this can also be a figure depending on time. So for any 
identifiable thing there will be a unique volume from it gets it identity until 
the identity is lost. This can be seen as a volume in a 4 dimensional space 
(X,Y,Z,T),  that is, a 3D figure evolving over time. It should also be evident 
that such a 4D volume is unique for a physical thing. Two things describing the 
exact same volume during their lifetime can be considered the same thing.


Instances of the class E92 Spacetime volume (STV among friends) are such 4 
dimensional volumes.  It is a handy abstraction which makes it possible to talk 
about a ship’s travel  etc.  The one to one relation between an identifiable 
physical thing and a spacetime volume is the reason to make E18 Physical thing 
a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume, that is, every instance of E18 Physical 
thing _is_ an instance of E92 Spacetime volume. However, practical experience 
has shown that this is considered to be very abstract for most users of CRM.  
We have observed confusions and misinterpretations. It is reported to be very 
difficult to teach CRM with this construct. It is more intuitive to say that a 
physical thing has a spacetime volume than to say that a physical thing is a 
spacetime volume.


Proposal 1: Replace E18 isa E92 Spacetime volume with a property PXXX:


Pxxx has defining STV (is defining STV of)

Domain:  E18 Physical Thing

Range: E92 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE proposal to replace E18 isa E92 and E4 isa E92 with properties

[Øyvind Eide]

I will not be there either, and even if I love STVs to the extent that my home 
wifi is called SpaceTimeVolume, I full support this change and also support 
case 3. 

To me some of the quantifications looks in conflict with the text but this 
might be just my evening brain and even if I happen to be right I am sure the 
details will be checked at the meeting — if after the meeting they still look 
strange to me I will address the issue with specific questions.

Have a nice meeting!

Øyvind

> Am 15.10.2019 um 17:48 schrieb Robert Sanderson :
> 
>  
> As the spacetime volume that is Rob, and the spacetime volume that is the 
> next SIG meeting will unfortunately not intersect, I’d like to register my 
> full support for this change, including case 3 as the preferred solution, in 
> advance!
>  
> Rob
>  
> From: Crm-sig  > on behalf of Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
> mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.no>>
> Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 1:19 AM
> To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr " 
> mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
> Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE proposal to replace E18 isa E92 and E4 isa E92 with 
> properties
>  
> Dear all,
> 
> This email describes the issue of replacing the  E18 isa E92 Spacetime volume 
>  and E4 isa E92 Spacetime volume with properties. The main reason to do so is 
>  based on the observation that for most of the (potential) users of CRM it is 
> too abstract to identify a thing with its spacetime volume.
> 
>  
> 
> Below I start with a soft introduction and then present the issue(s). I have 
> given links to documents which can be downloaded. These are ppt with 4 
> possible cases (case 3 is what is suggested) and  concordance of the phrase 
> “spacetime volume” in the CRM document.
> 
>  
> 
>  ppt: http://www.edd.uio.no/nedlasting/cidoc-crm/STV_suggested_changes.ppt 
> 
> concordance: 
> http://www.edd.uio.no/nedlasting/cidoc-crm/kwic_spacetime_volume.txt 
> ​
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Christian-Emil
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of spacetime volume is taken from physics. The idea is intuitive. 
>  Every physical thing has a volume, that is, occupies space (check your 
> cupboard).  When a cup is moved  in the kitchen its volume will move relative 
> to the kitchen floor and walls. Its place in the kitchen will depend on the 
> time of the day. If the cup’s movement is registered in a 3D model, say every 
> second , its whereabouts will look like some strange geometric figure. If the 
> cups movement from it production to it is broken beyond recognition by a 
> steamroller, this can also be a figure depending on time. So for any 
> identifiable thing there will be a unique volume from it gets it identity 
> until the identity is lost. This can be seen as a volume in a 4 dimensional 
> space (X,Y,Z,T),  that is, a 3D figure evolving over time. It should also be 
> evident that such a 4D volume is unique for a physical thing. Two things 
> describing the exact same volume during their lifetime can be considered the 
> same thing.
> 
>  
> 
> Instances of the class E92 Spacetime volume (STV among friends) are such 4 
> dimensional volumes.  It is a handy abstraction which makes it possible to 
> talk about a ship’s travel  etc.  The one to one relation between an 
> identifiable physical thing and a spacetime volume is the reason to make E18 
> Physical thing a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume, that is, every instance of 
> E18 Physical thing _is_ an instance of E92 Spacetime volume. However, 
> practical experience has shown that this is considered to be very abstract 
> for most users of CRM.  We have observed confusions and misinterpretations. 
> It is reported to be very difficult to teach CRM with this construct. It is 
> more intuitive to say that a physical thing has a spacetime volume than to 
> say that a physical thing is a spacetime volume. 
> 
>  
> 
> Proposal 1: Replace E18 isa E92 Spacetime volume with a property PXXX:
> 
>  
> 
> Pxxx has defining STV (is defining STV of)  
> 
> Domain:  E18 Physical Thing
> 
> Range: E92 Spacetime Volume
> 
> Quantification: one to one, necessary  (1,1:0,1)
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> In the current model we also have E4 Period isa E92 Spacetime volume. This is 
> more intuitive since something happening has a time and a place but no 
> physical substance. On the other hand, it is arguable that two events may 
> happen at the same time and same place. A simple example technical example 
> are instances of E8 Acquisition and E10 Transfer of Custody, which may happen 
> at the same time and place. More generally and perhaps more philosophically, 
> when documenting the past, it is not uncommon to interpret something happing 
> at a place and time as more than one event. If one accept this, then an 
> instance of E92 Spacetime Volu

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions

[Robert Sanderson]

Yes, that makes sense, thank you.

One further observation…

> The same reasoning holds for many dimensions, but there is no typical 
> practice as vague as that of providing a point near a place.

I think there’s some very similar practice however of providing multiple values 
for the same dimension, that at least are roundings from the same measurement.

For example the Met’s descriptions have “H. 14 5/16 in. (36.4 cm)” and similar 
[1], ours are the other way around “23 x 16.5 cm (9 1/16 x 6 ½ in.)” [2] as 
does MFA Boson [3], the NGA [4] and many others.

With P90a and P90b we could give a margin of error, but indeed that is not 
common practice that I can find.
So while the true place falls_within the declared approximations, we cannot say 
that both 14 5/16 in. and 36.4 cm are close approximations of the same height. 
They may have both come from different Measurement activities, rather than one 
being calculated from the other, so we can’t use that as a joining entity.

> I suggest to regard any dimension as an approximation, except for counting 
> stable aggregates of things.

Do you mean then to remove the “true quantity” description from the scope notes?

Many thanks,

Rob


[1] 
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/455545?&searchField=All&ft=*&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=12
[2] http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/34663/
[3] https://collections.mfa.org/objects/58904
[4] https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.4217.html




From: Martin Doerr 
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 11:18 AM
To: Robert Sanderson , "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 

Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions

Hi Robert,

I have been a bit sloppy, as always;-).

A phenomenal place is thought to be recognizable within some fuzzy limits. So, 
indeed, all spatial coordinates for a phenomenal place are approximations. For 
those approximations, we normally use the properties "has former or current 
location" or "falls within", which both include the true place. That means, 
that the intersection of all those is still includes the true place. With these 
properties, I can query absolutely where the place is guaranteed not to be, and 
within which limits I find it. With P189, we mean an approximation of unknown 
guaranteed relations to the approximated. So, we cannot query yes or no where 
the real place is in relation to the approximation.

The same reasoning holds for many dimensions, but there is no typical practice 
as vague as that of providing a point near a place.

On the other side, many dimensions are not stable over time. For those, each 
measurement provides another dimension. Many measurements are given with 
statistical deviation values. The scenario intersecting all measurements to get 
closer to the real value normally does not hold. It will be a combination of 
measurement deviations and varying "real value", and intrinsic fuzziness of the 
property measured.

Therefore I suggest to regard any dimension as an approximation, except for 
counting stable aggregates of things.

Would that make sense:-)?

Best,

Martin

On 10/16/2019 6:54 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Thanks Martin!  A couple of clarifying questions, please …

> The point is, that true numerical values of Dimensions do not exist for 
> continuous value spaces.

Could you explain how you see this being different for E53 Place? The true 
Place also doesn’t exist as space is also continuous. Doubly so as the 
definition of place says it is independent of matter. No matter how precise I 
am about a lat/long/altitude, I still could be more precise. Or more precise 
about a location relative to an object as a frame of reference; notably as this 
frame of reference would need to be measured … which would mean that Place 
would rely on the Dimensions. So it seems like we can reduce the Place 
approximation to a Dimension approximation, at least in the case of relative 
coordinate spaces.

> For any approximation with known inclusion or overlap properties to the real 
> place, P189 should NOT be used. A "real place" can be confirmed by multiple 
> observations for things that do not move or have not moved.

And also for this … how would we have multiple observations of the Place, such 
that it was clear that they were all approximations of a single phenomenal 
place, without using P189?  For example, I have a bounding box for my city of 
birth, and a centroid pin for it … I wasn’t born in two places, yet without 
using P189, I would need to have two P7s … no? What am I missing? 😊

Many thanks,

Rob


From: Crm-sig 
 on behalf 
of Martin Doerr 
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:18 AM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 

Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions

Dear Robert, All,

Your proposal well taken, but the recent change in the scope note was exactly 
that "The properties of the class E54 Dimensi

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE proposal to replace E18 isa E92 and E4 isa E92 with properties

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Christian-Emil, all,

This is a very good start.
In order to understand the problem, we need to have an overview of all 
properties inherited from STV, those raised to STV, and see the 
long-paths that will be consequence of the indirection, as well as 
ambiguities of choices of representation in time and space for those 
properties we have merged after the IsA.


All the best,

Martin

On 10/15/2019 11:11 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:


Dear all,

This email describes the issue of replacing the  E18 isa E92 Spacetime 
volume  and E4 isa E92 Spacetime volume with properties. The main 
reason to do so is  based on the observation that for most of the 
(potential) users of CRM it is too abstract to identify a thing with 
its spacetime volume.



Below I start with a soft introduction and then present the issue(s). 
I have given links to documents which can be downloaded. These are ppt 
with 4 possible cases (case 3 is what is suggested) and  concordance 
of the phrase “spacetime volume” in the CRM document.



 ppt: http://www.edd.uio.no/nedlasting/cidoc-crm/STV_suggested_changes.ppt

concordance: 
http://www.edd.uio.no/nedlasting/cidoc-crm/kwic_spacetime_volume.txt​



Best,

Christian-Emil




The concept of spacetime volume is taken from physics. The idea is 
intuitive.  Every physical thing has a volume, that is, occupies space 
(check your cupboard).  When a cup is moved  in the kitchen its volume 
will move relative to the kitchen floor and walls. Its place in the 
kitchen will depend on the time of the day. If the cup’s movement is 
registered in a 3D model, say every second , its whereabouts will look 
like some strange geometric figure. If the cups movement from it 
production to it is broken beyond recognition by a steamroller, this 
can also be a figure depending on time. So for any identifiable thing 
there will be a unique volume from it gets it identity until the 
identity is lost. This can be seen as a volume in a 4 dimensional 
space (X,Y,Z,T),  that is, a 3D figure evolving over time. It should 
also be evident that such a 4D volume is unique for a physical thing. 
Two things describing the exact same volume during their lifetime can 
be considered the same thing.



Instances of the class E92 Spacetime volume (STV among friends) are 
such 4 dimensional volumes.  It is a handy abstraction which makes it 
possible to talk about a ship’s travel  etc.  The one to one relation 
between an identifiable physical thing and a spacetime volume is the 
reason to make E18 Physical thing a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume, 
that is, every instance of E18 Physical thing _is_ an instance of E92 
Spacetime volume. However, practical experience has shown that this is 
considered to be very abstract for most users of CRM.  We have 
observed confusions and misinterpretations. It is reported to be very 
difficult to teach CRM with this construct. It is more intuitive to 
say that a physical thing has a spacetime volume than to say that a 
physical thing is a spacetime volume.



Proposal 1: Replace E18 isa E92 Spacetime volume with a property PXXX:


Pxxx has defining STV (is defining STV of)

Domain:  E18 Physical Thing

Range: E92 Spacetime Volume

Quantification: one to one, necessary  (1,1:0,1)



In the current model we also have E4 Period isa E92 Spacetime volume. 
This is more intuitive since something happening has a time and a 
place but no physical substance. On the other hand, it is arguable 
that two events may happen at the same time and same place. A simple 
example technical example are instances of E8 Acquisition and E10 
Transfer of Custody, which may happen at the same time and place. More 
generally and perhaps more philosophically, when documenting the past, 
it is not uncommon to interpret something happing at a place and time 
as more than one event. If one accept this, then an instance of E92 
Spacetime Volume is not in one to one relation with an instance of E4 
Period, two instances of E4 Period can share an instance of E92 
Spacetime Volume



Proposal 2:  Replace E4 isa E92 Spacetime volume with a property Pyyy

Pyyy has defining STV (is defining STV of)

Domain:  E4 Period

Range: E92 Spacetime Volume

Quantification: one to one, necessary  (1,1:0,n)

This construct will solve the problem of P4 vs P160.

Consequences for the current CRM (document):

There only two properties that are a sub property of a property with 
STV as domain or range:


1)  P46 is composed of (forms part of)

2)  P156 occupies (is occupied by)

P46 needs an adjustment of the FOL-definition (which also has an error 
as it is today). P156 is ok as it is (although its not so easy to 
understand)


The scope not of the two classes E4 Period and P18 Physical thing has 
to be adjusted. There is a almost identical paragraph which can be 
deleted and reused in the scope note for the new properties.


E18 Physical Thing:

We model E18 

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions

[Martin Doerr]

Hi Robert,

I have been a bit sloppy, as always;-).

A phenomenal place is thought to be recognizable within some fuzzy 
limits. So, indeed, all spatial coordinates for a phenomenal place are 
approximations. For those approximations, we normally use the properties 
"has former or current location" or "falls within", which both include 
the true place. That means, that the intersection of all those is still 
includes the true place. With these properties, I can query absolutely 
where the place is guaranteed not to be, and within which limits I find 
it. With P189, we mean an approximation of unknown guaranteed relations 
to the approximated. So, we cannot query yes or no where the real place 
is in relation to the approximation.


The same reasoning holds for many dimensions, but there is no typical 
practice as vague as that of providing a point near a place.


On the other side, many dimensions are not stable over time. For those, 
each measurement provides another dimension. Many measurements are given 
with statistical deviation values. The scenario intersecting all 
measurements to get closer to the real value normally does not hold. It 
will be a combination of measurement deviations and varying "real 
value", and intrinsic fuzziness of the property measured.


Therefore I suggest to regard any dimension as an approximation, except 
for counting stable aggregates of things.


Would that make sense:-)?

Best,

Martin

On 10/16/2019 6:54 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Thanks Martin!  A couple of clarifying questions, please …

> The point is, that true numerical values of Dimensions do not exist 
for continuous value spaces.


Could you explain how you see this being different for E53 Place? The 
true Place also doesn’t exist as space is also continuous. Doubly so 
as the definition of place says it is independent of matter. No matter 
how precise I am about a lat/long/altitude, I still could be more 
precise. Or more precise about a location relative to an object as a 
frame of reference; notably as this frame of reference would need to 
be measured … which would mean that Place would rely on the 
Dimensions. So it seems like we can reduce the Place approximation to 
a Dimension approximation, at least in the case of relative coordinate 
spaces.


> For any approximation with known inclusion or overlap properties to 
the real place, P189 should NOT be used. A "real place" can be 
confirmed by multiple observations for things that do not move or have 
not moved.


And also for this … how would we have multiple observations of the 
Place, such that it was clear that they were all approximations of a 
single phenomenal place, without using P189?  For example, I have a 
bounding box for my city of birth, and a centroid pin for it … I 
wasn’t born in two places, yet without using P189, I would need to 
have two P7s … no? What am I missing? 😊


Many thanks,

Rob

*From: *Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr 

*Date: *Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:18 AM
*To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions

Dear Robert, All,

Your proposal well taken, but the recent change in the scope note was 
exactly that "The properties of the class E54 Dimension allow for 
expressing the numerical approximation of the values of instances of 
E54 Dimension. ".


The point is, that true numerical values of Dimensions do not exist 
for continuous value spaces. Therefore, any measurement and opinion 
about the values are approximations.So, there is no need for another 
property. Measurements have typically known tolerances, which may be 
statistical, as mean deviations, or absolute.


The property P189 was introduced because of the huge number of 
geo-referenced resource with no indication how distant or different 
the approximating area is from the real place. For any approximation 
with known inclusion or overlap properties to the real place, P189 
should NOT be used. A "real place" can be confirmed by multiple 
observations for things that do not move or have not moved.


This scenario does not exist in the same way for dimensions *in general.*

I recommend to adjust scope notes and guidelines adequately. If a 
dimension is given as 10cm, it is per definitionem an approximation, 
because no natural thing has dimension 
10,000 
cm.


A fine example of measurement tolerances is the recent problem of 
determining the proton radius:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_radius_puzzle

See also:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-history-plots.pdf

https://www.quantamagazine.org/proton-radius-puzzle-deepens-with-new-measurement-20160811/

I think it is a question of guide lines how to interpret the absence 
of P10a,b.


Opinions?

Best,

Martin

On 10/15/2019 7:13 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

Dear all,

In recent history, we have added P189 approximates for the
practically ubiquitous scenario where 

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions

[Robert Sanderson]

Thanks Martin!  A couple of clarifying questions, please …

> The point is, that true numerical values of Dimensions do not exist for 
> continuous value spaces.

Could you explain how you see this being different for E53 Place? The true 
Place also doesn’t exist as space is also continuous. Doubly so as the 
definition of place says it is independent of matter. No matter how precise I 
am about a lat/long/altitude, I still could be more precise. Or more precise 
about a location relative to an object as a frame of reference; notably as this 
frame of reference would need to be measured … which would mean that Place 
would rely on the Dimensions. So it seems like we can reduce the Place 
approximation to a Dimension approximation, at least in the case of relative 
coordinate spaces.

> For any approximation with known inclusion or overlap properties to the real 
> place, P189 should NOT be used. A "real place" can be confirmed by multiple 
> observations for things that do not move or have not moved.

And also for this … how would we have multiple observations of the Place, such 
that it was clear that they were all approximations of a single phenomenal 
place, without using P189?  For example, I have a bounding box for my city of 
birth, and a centroid pin for it … I wasn’t born in two places, yet without 
using P189, I would need to have two P7s … no? What am I missing? 😊

Many thanks,

Rob


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:18 AM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions

Dear Robert, All,

Your proposal well taken, but the recent change in the scope note was exactly 
that "The properties of the class E54 Dimension allow for expressing the 
numerical approximation of the values of instances of E54 Dimension. ".

The point is, that true numerical values of Dimensions do not exist for 
continuous value spaces. Therefore, any measurement and opinion about the 
values are approximations.So, there is no need for another property. 
Measurements have typically known tolerances, which may be statistical, as mean 
deviations, or absolute.

The property P189 was introduced because of the huge number of geo-referenced 
resource with no indication how distant or different the approximating area is 
from the real place. For any approximation with known inclusion or overlap 
properties to the real place, P189 should NOT be used. A "real place" can be 
confirmed by multiple observations for things that do not move or have not 
moved.

This scenario does not exist in the same way for dimensions in general.

I recommend to adjust scope notes and guidelines adequately. If a dimension is 
given as 10cm, it is per definitionem an approximation, because no natural 
thing has dimension 
10,000 cm.

A fine example of measurement tolerances is the recent problem of determining 
the proton radius:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_radius_puzzle
See also:
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-history-plots.pdf
https://www.quantamagazine.org/proton-radius-puzzle-deepens-with-new-measurement-20160811/

I think it is a question of guide lines how to interpret the absence of P10a,b.

Opinions?

Best,

Martin


On 10/15/2019 7:13 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

Dear all,

In recent history, we have added P189 approximates for the practically 
ubiquitous scenario where we have recorded the approximate “declarative” place 
of an event, but not the exact “phenomenal” place. P189 allows us to say that 
the event took place at the phenomenal place, which is then approximated by the 
declarative place.

Thus:
  Birth_of_Rob a E67_Birth ;
p7_took_place_at [
a E53_Place ;
rdfs:label “The exact place Rob was born” ;
p189i_approximated_by [
a E53_Place ;
rdfs:label “New Zealand” ;
// …
]
]

This gives us two significant advantages:


  1.  We can have multiple declarative places associated with the single 
phenomenal place. This allows us to be clear that the event took place in one 
location, but we have multiple ways to describe that location in our 
information system.
  2.  If we can be precise (enough) about the phenomenal place (e.g. we have 
the GPS coordinates from the digital camera that took the photograph), then we 
do not have a different model … we can simply ascribe those coordinate values 
to the phenomenal place.

While the E53 Place scope notes do not talk about approximation, there is 
another class that does … the very next one, E54 Dimension.


An instance of E54 Dimension represents the true quantity, independent from its 
numerical

approximation, e.g. in inches or in cm.

However, there isn’t a property that allows us to use this same approximation 
pattern for Dimensions.

The same advantages would apply:

  1.  We can have multiple declarative dimensions (10 inches, 25 centimeters)

Re: [Crm-sig] Help wanted - Modelling an observation activity

[Pierre Choffé]

Hi Thanasios,

Thank you so much for this, I had totally forgotten CRMsci :) This seems to
be exactly what I was looking for !

All the best,
Pierre

Le mer. 16 oct. 2019 à 17:18, Athanasios Velios  a
écrit :

> Hello Pierre,
>
> Isn't "S19 Encounter Event" from CRMsci what you are talking about? And
> then use the properties "O19 has found object" and "O21 has found at".
>
> O21 can be used for the location of the whale and P7 for the location of
> the lighthouse, no?
>
> All the best,
>
> Thanasis
>
> On 16/10/2019 12:47, Pierre Choffé wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I am presently working on a project for the Muséum National d'Histoire
> > Naturelle in Paris and we are using CRM. We need to model an observation
> > activity which consists in observing from a certain place some taxon
> > which may be at a distant place. For example, observing from a
> > lighthouse a beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) passing at a few miles
> > distance. My first guess was to consider this activity as a kind of
> > measurement and therefore I used E13 Attribute Assignment as a parent
> > class for ObservationActivity. The observation activity P7 took place at
> > the lighthouse and "observed" a location (gps coordinates where the
> > whale was seen).
> >
> > Do you think this makes sense? Do you see any other way to model this ?
> >
> > Thank you very much for your help,
> > All the best to all,
> > Pierre
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Help wanted - Modelling an observation activity

[Athanasios Velios]

Hello Pierre,

Isn't "S19 Encounter Event" from CRMsci what you are talking about? And 
then use the properties "O19 has found object" and "O21 has found at".


O21 can be used for the location of the whale and P7 for the location of 
the lighthouse, no?


All the best,

Thanasis

On 16/10/2019 12:47, Pierre Choffé wrote:

Dear all,

I am presently working on a project for the Muséum National d'Histoire 
Naturelle in Paris and we are using CRM. We need to model an observation 
activity which consists in observing from a certain place some taxon 
which may be at a distant place. For example, observing from a 
lighthouse a beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) passing at a few miles 
distance. My first guess was to consider this activity as a kind of 
measurement and therefore I used E13 Attribute Assignment as a parent 
class for ObservationActivity. The observation activity P7 took place at 
the lighthouse and "observed" a location (gps coordinates where the 
whale was seen).


Do you think this makes sense? Do you see any other way to model this ?

Thank you very much for your help,
All the best to all,
Pierre

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

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Robert, All,

Your proposal well taken, but the recent change in the scope note was 
exactly that "The properties of the class E54 Dimension allow for 
expressing the numerical approximation of the values of instances of E54 
Dimension. ".


The point is, that true numerical values of Dimensions do not exist for 
continuous value spaces. Therefore, any measurement and opinion about 
the values are approximations.So, there is no need for another property. 
Measurements have typically known tolerances, which may be statistical, 
as mean deviations, or absolute.


The property P189 was introduced because of the huge number of 
geo-referenced resource with no indication how distant or different the 
approximating area is from the real place. For any approximation with 
known inclusion or overlap properties to the real place, P189 should NOT 
be used. A "real place" can be confirmed by multiple observations for 
things that do not move or have not moved.


This scenario does not exist in the same way for dimensions *in general.*
*
*
I recommend to adjust scope notes and guidelines adequately. If a 
dimension is given as 10cm, it is per definitionem an approximation, 
because no natural thing has dimension 
10,000 
cm.


A fine example of measurement tolerances is the recent problem of 
determining the proton radius:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_radius_puzzle
See also:
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-history-plots.pdf
https://www.quantamagazine.org/proton-radius-puzzle-deepens-with-new-measurement-20160811/

I think it is a question of guide lines how to interpret the absence of 
P10a,b.


Opinions?

Best,

Martin

On 10/15/2019 7:13 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Dear all,

In recent history, we have added P189 approximates for the practically 
ubiquitous scenario where we have recorded the approximate 
“declarative” place of an event, but not the exact “phenomenal” place. 
P189 allows us to say that the event took place at the phenomenal 
place, which is then approximated by the declarative place.


Thus:

  Birth_of_Rob a E67_Birth ;

p7_took_place_at [

    a E53_Place ;

rdfs:label “The exact place Rob was born” ;

p189i_approximated_by [

a E53_Place ;

rdfs:label “New Zealand” ;

 // …

    ]

    ]

This gives us two significant advantages:

 1. We can have multiple declarative places associated with the single
phenomenal place. This allows us to be clear that the event took
place in one location, but we have multiple ways to describe that
location in our information system.
 2. If we can be precise (enough) about the phenomenal place (e.g. we
have the GPS coordinates from the digital camera that took the
photograph), then we do not have a different model … we can simply
ascribe those coordinate values to the phenomenal place.

While the E53 Place scope notes do not talk about approximation, there 
is another class that does … the very next one, E54 Dimension.


An instance of E54 Dimension represents the true quantity, independent 
from its numerical


approximation, e.g. in inches or in cm.

However, there isn’t a property that allows us to use this same 
approximation pattern for Dimensions.


The same advantages would apply:

 1. We can have multiple declarative dimensions (10 inches, 25
centimeters) that approximate the true dimension, rather than
implying there are two different dimensions.
 2. If we do not have this case, because the dimension is measured
very accurately and has only a single numerical representation,
then we can simply use a single Dimension.

This is also useful for conservation when the same dimension is 
measured to different degrees of accuracy with different instruments 
or techniques … there is only a single height (for example) but it is 
measured with a laser, or by estimation.


Thus I would like to propose the addition of a new property, 
Pxxx_approximates_dimension, that mirrors P189_approximates, that 
would be used to associate true dimensions with their approximations.


It would be used in exactly the same way as P189:

painting a Human-Made_Object ;

has_dimension [

    a Dimension ;

p2_has_type  ;

pxxxi_dimension_approximated_by [

    a Dimension ;

p90_has_value 10 ;

p91_has_unit 

]

  ]

Thank you for your consideration of this issue!  I’m happy to write up 
a draft scope note for discussion if the general issue is considered 
to be worthy of inclusion.


Rob


___
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:+3

[Crm-sig] Help wanted - Modelling an observation activity

[Pierre Choffé]

Dear all,

I am presently working on a project for the Muséum National d'Histoire
Naturelle in Paris and we are using CRM. We need to model an observation
activity which consists in observing from a certain place some taxon which
may be at a distant place. For example, observing from a lighthouse a beluga
whale (Delphinapterus leucas) passing at a few miles distance. My first
guess was to consider this activity as a kind of measurement and therefore
I used E13 Attribute Assignment as a parent class for ObservationActivity.
The observation activity P7 took place at the lighthouse and "observed" a
location (gps coordinates where the whale was seen).

Do you think this makes sense? Do you see any other way to model this ?

Thank you very much for your help,
All the best to all,
Pierre