[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: [Sci] Labels of O19, O21

[Robert Sanderson]

Dear all,

At a recent Linked Art meeting we discussed how to model “find events”, and S19 
and O19 were agreed upon as the correct modeling constructs.  We also discussed 
why S19 is an “encounter” rather than a “find” or “discovery”, as is very well 
described in the scope notes for the class.

However, the properties of S19 would benefit from some attention towards 
consistency.  If S19 is encountering, then it seems counterproductive to have 
O19 as being “has found object” and O21 “has found at”, undoing all the good 
culturally sensitive work of explained in S19.

I would propose that O19 and 21 be relabeled to “encountered object (was object 
encountered by)” and “encountered at (witnessed encounter)”.

Many thanks for your consideration,

Rob

--
Dr. Robert Sanderson,  Semantic Architect  |  Getty Digital  |  
getty.edu
[signature_1632129958]
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Pxx represents entity of type

[Robert Sanderson]

Hi Nicola,

I disagree with the relationship to P137.  That would mean that the visual item 
exemplified the type, which it doesn’t, it merely depicts an entity of the type.
For example, if it were a sub-property of P137 and I was looking for exemplars 
of abstract impressionism, I might find images that are photographic that 
merely depict an instance of something which is abstract impressionism.
I could also see it being a sibling to P138 rather than a child, and thus a 
sub-property of P67.

I took the “not of interest” phrase from the parallel P125:

> This property defines the kind of objects used in an E7 Activity, when the 
> specific instance is either unknown or not of interest, such as use of "a 
> hammer".

But I’m also happy with your reformulation.

Thanks!

Rob

From: Nicola Carboni 
Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 2:48 AM
To: Robert Sanderson 
Cc: crm-sig 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Pxx represents entity of type


Dear Rob,

I do agree with the need and the formulation, and it can be extremely useful 
for iconographical attributes (which are intentionally classified using 
categories). I did personally used the same 
construct in an 
extension of CRM for iconographical representation, so would love to see it in 
CRM base.

Sub Property Of P138 Represents

What about making it as subproperty of "P137 exemplifies (is exemplified by)". 
It does seems to me more appropriate.

This property establishes the relationship between an E36 Visual Item and an 
E55 Type that represents the class of entity which it visually represents. This 
property is used when the specific entity being represented is either unknown, 
or not of documentary interest. The manner or mode of the representation can be 
captured using Pxx.1 mode of representation.

I would not use a negative ("not of documentary interest") and say "This 
property is used when the specific entity being represented is either unknown, 
or for documenting the belonging of an item to a specific category" or another 
more positive formulation. In my experience, the choice of the classification 
of categorical vs instance depends on the discipline and not by a lack of 
documentary interest.

Another example could be:

  *   The attribute of the wall painting "Saint George" (E36) represents an 
entity of type dragon (E55) in the manner of Iconographical Attribute (E55)

Best,

Nicola

—
Nicola Carboni
Research Fellow // History of Art
University of Zurich Post Box 23
Ramistrasse 71 8006 Zurich
Switzerland

On 19 Feb 2020, at 1:54, Robert Sanderson wrote:



Dear all,



(Last new issue for now, I promise)



When describing a Visual Item, we can say that it represents some entity that 
you can point to (e.g. the sitter), that it is about some subject that you 
can’t point to (e.g love) and it can have general classifications with has type 
for style (abstract) or other such features of the overall visual content. 
However, it would be useful to be able to say that a class of entity is 
represented in the visual item rather than a specific entity.



We have tried several approaches to this. If we want to say that a still life 
painting depicts flowers, we would not want to create a Biological Object and 
classify it as a flower to be represented by the visual item of the painting … 
such a flower may never have actually existed, and it would be enormously 
expensive. Equally we don’t think that the Type “flowers” is represented in the 
painting … it’s a not a depiction of all flowers, it’s a depiction of some, 
likely fictional, collection of specific flowers.



So we would propose a new property that parallels P138 represents, but instead 
refers to a class of entity rather than a specific.



We can see this pattern already in the model:

P16 used specific objectvs   P125 used object of type

P20 had specific purpose vsP21 had general purpose

P33 used specific techniquevs   P32 used general technique

P108 has producedvsP186 produced thing of product type



Pxx represents entity of type

Domain: E36 Visual Item

Range: E55 Type

Sub Property Of P138 Represents



This property establishes the relationship between an E36 Visual Item and an 
E55 Type that represents the class of entity which it visually represents.  
This property is used when the specific entity being represented is either 
unknown, or not of documentary interest.  The manner or mode of the 
representation can be captured using Pxx.1 mode of representation.



Properties:  Pxx.1 mode of representation: E55 Type



Examples:
· The still life painting’s image content (E36) represents and entity 
of type flowers (E55)
· The sculpture’s visual content (E36) represents an entity of type 
woman (E55)
· The photograph’s visual content (E36) represents an entity of type 
beach (E55) in the manner of background (E55)





Thoughts?



Many thanks!



Rob





--

Dr. Robe

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Normal Custodian Of?

[Robert Sanderson]

Another use case which has come up:

A painting is given from the Paintings department, which is the normal 
custodian, to the Conservation department, in order to perform conservation 
work on it.

The Conservation department has custody of it, but the Paintings department is 
still the normal custodian.  The ownership of the object doesn’t change. And 
potentially the physical location of it doesn’t either, if the conservation 
work is being done in place in the gallery, such as the current work on the 
Nightwatch at the Rijksmuseum, or Blue Boy at the Huntingdon here in California.

Rob


From: George Bruseker 
Date: Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:14 AM
To: Robert Sanderson 
Cc: crm-sig 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Normal Custodian Of?

It seems to make sense to raise as an issue. The case does seem to come up 
reasonably frequently. The parallel seems convincing. For the moment we could 
cover temporal elements by initiating the existing of the property via an E13 
attribute assignment (if we had such info).




On Feb 15, 2020, at 2:33 AM, Robert Sanderson 
mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:


Apologies, I should have put NEW ISSUE in the subject for this originally.

As a quick proposal to discuss:

With P54 has current permanent location as a precedent, I would propose a Pxx 
has current permanent custodian as a new property to manage the knowledge 
described in the email below.

Happy to work on a scope note for it if that’s a useful thing to add to the 
ontology.

Rob

From: Robert Sanderson mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 12:24 PM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
Subject: Normal Custodian Of?


Dear fellow SIG folks,

Happy new year 😊

A question came up here as to how to record the normal custodian of an object, 
as opposed to the current custodian.

For example, if we have custody of an object but it’s a permanent loan from a 
donor, and we lend it to another organization for an exhibition, then the owner 
doesn’t change (still the donor, probably wanting to remain anonymous) and 
there’s a transfer of custody from ourselves to the exhibiting organization.  
If that’s a travelling exhibit, it might pass through several custodians before 
it should eventually return to us.

Is there a way to track this not-quite-an-owner but 
not-just-the-current-custodian state?  The only way that I can see is to model 
the right of permanent custody separate from the right of temporary custody… 
but then we re-enter the rights and temporal validity arena.  Perhaps this 
would be another motivating use case for moving forward with that work?

Many thanks for your thoughts,

Rob

--
Rob Sanderson,  Semantic Architect  |  Getty Digital  |  
getty.edu

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


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not click links or 
open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content is safe.


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