Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Der Christian-Emil, all,

I agree in all you say below.

I'd like to mention that we have the issue about position measurements, 
and data evaluation as inference making in CRMinf. I'd suggest to see 
these things together for a wider theory.


Best,

Martin

On 3/23/2021 10:12 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear Francesco,
You did not violate any rule. My point was simply that the reduction has 
already been accepted. The question was about an adjustment of the scope notes 
so that they were in harmony with the reduced range.
I had some concern about the reduction but ended with the conclusion that it is 
only physical matter that can be measured in the way the CRM measurement is 
defined.

We also had a discussion in the chat in the meeting about measuring phenomena 
in a text, the example was the frequency of the  definite article 'the' in a 
work of Shakespeare. I will claim that the frequency is measured by counting 
the number of the occurrences of the three letter sequence with  white space or 
delimiters on each side in a given manuscript or printed text. One may also 
count the number of  'the' when listening to a oral performance of a work, 
still it is a measurement of a physical thing, the sound. From such measurement 
on may deduce and attach properties to the abstract object.  The question is if 
one can directly measure dimensions of non-physical things like temporal 
entities and abstracts - may be.  May be such measurement will be instances of 
a class of human subjective decisions and thus instances of attribute 
assignment?

Best,
Christian-Emil

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Franco Niccolucci via 
Crm-sig 
Sent: 23 March 2021 20:35
To: Francesco Beretta
Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

and you may have noticed that I did not vote - I just wanted to stimulate 
reflection, and I will not bore you anymore. I will reply Martin directly.

Franco

Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus
Technology Director 4CH

Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy



Il giorno 23 mar 2021, alle ore 19:50, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig 
 ha scritto:

Dear Martin, Christian-Emil, all,

In order not to block a development that seems to be largely consensual, and 
considering that my veto apparently violates the SIG rules, I withdraw it and 
simply vote NO.

If the majority thinks that the problem I have pointed to is not a problem and 
that the inconsistency between previous versions of the CRM and the new one in 
relation to the substance of this class is not an issue, especially with 
respect to monotonicity, I personnally have nothing to add.

With all my best wishes

Francesco



Le 23.03.21 à 19:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :

Dear Francesco,

Your concerns well respected, please let me explain a few things:

Firstly, this e-vote is not about the reduction of the range of P39 from E1 CRM 
Entity to E18 Physical Thing.

The reduction was decided in the last CRM-SIG with good majority after 
considering all pros and cons.

Following our rules, a decision once made by the CRM-SIG can only be undone by 
raising a new issue, providing new additional arguments.

Therefore, the use of the VETO right should not be used to undo an orderly 
decision taken by the SIG.

Nevertheless, let me

On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, and more largely 
with substantially changing the substance of a class without changing its identifier: E16 
remains E16 but "measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of coins" 
is now excluded.


Firstly,


So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the surface of 
Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place for representing a 
geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot be measured ?



Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check :  "E54 Dimensions are 
associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension.  So not every class can 
have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70.
However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM Entity, 
meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a dimension, it can 
be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent that an entity that 
cannot have dimensions can still be measured.
I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to resolve this 
inconsistency."

Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical things is that 
it does not constitute an observation process, but an abstraction from observable things. 
We can always use Attribute Assignment for such evaluations. So, we can assign the word 
count to a text, without using E16 Measurement."

after a quite short discussion (in prop

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Fancesco,

Thank you very much for reconsidering and withdrawing your veto. By 
mistake, I send my message before finishing it.


Please let me be more analytical about the arguments.

Your arguments in the SIG meeting have been well understood and well 
respected, and been evaluated against the alternatives and *by no means 
*ignored or *regarded as irrelevant*.


Summarizing the arguments pro:

1) Even though the range of P39 until 7.1 was E1 CRM Entity, it should 
never has been used in CRM applications for things other than instances 
of E70 Thing. Therefore, the range of P39 should be restricted at least 
to E70 Thing.


2) According to the scope note of E16, a Measurement is the result of 
observing a physical thing.

   The old and new scope note begins:
"This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties 
and other values that can be determined by a systematic, objective 
procedure of direct observation of particular states of physical reality."


3) Determining or inferring instances of P43 has dimension can be the 
result of different kinds of processes.


For instances of E28 Conceptual Objects, these processes are not E16 
Measurement, but evaluation of results, as *clearly stated in the old 
scope note*:


"Properties of instances of E90 Symbolic Object may be measured by 
observing some of their representative *carriers*" and
"Regardless whether a measurement is made by an instrument or by human 
senses, it *represents the initial transition from physical reality to 
information without any other documented information object in between* 
within the reasoning chain that would represent the result of the 
interaction of the observer or device with reality. Therefore, inferring 
properties of depicted items using image material, such as satellite 
images, *is not regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement*, but as a 
subsequent instance of *E13 Attribute Assignment.*"


4) Since the processes for inferring instances of P43 has dimension can 
be documented using E13 Attribute Assignment, it is not necessary that 
the range of P39 includes non-physical things in order to document how a 
dimension of an instance of E70 Thing was found. This is already 
described in the old scope note.


Of *paramount importance* is the interpretation that a measurement 
implies the *physical presence *of an object of evidence. Physical 
presence is one of the most fundamental reasoning processes in the CRM, 
which must not be abandoned or confused. In how far results are 
repeatable, precise etc. is *all *secondary to the fact that a present 
physical thing has empirically be evaluated.


Therefore, the *e-vote is  about the consistency *of the correction of 
the scope notes with the basic meaning of the old scope note of E16, and 
the correct propagation of all ramifications of the already decided 
reduction of the range of P39.


5) Since in version 7.1 we do, for good reasons, no more require all 
properties of compatible extensions to be subproperties of CRMbase 
properties, S21 Measurement in CRMsci needs no more be subclass of E16 
Measurement for formal reasons. The *inadequate range of P39* however 
*prevented* developing adequate generalization of E16 Measurement in 
CRMsci. The decision to reduce P39 to E18 Physical Thing in the ISO 
standard to come *enables* CRMsci to be developed as it should. Not 
doing it, *would have blocked CRMsci* for a decade.


Please allow me to answer below your statements:

On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:


Dear all,

as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with 
monotonicity, and more largely with substantially changing the 
substance of a class without changing its identifier: E16 remains 
E16 but "measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of 
coins" is now _excluded_.


As stated above by citing the old scope note, I kindly ask you to 
consider that we have good reasons not to regard the decision as 
"substantially changing the substance" of E16, but as respecting the 
very substance, in contrast to border cases.


It is not true that "measuring the nominal monetary value of a 
collection of coins" is now _excluded_. It is true that it no more 
explicitly meantioned as an important application. It was deleted 
because it is amgiguous about the evaluation method, and therefore 
regarded as not particularly useful.


The paramount application of E16 is conservation technology in museum, 
monuments, and archaeometry, not counting pixels of images or money. 
Would you indeed disagree?



So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the 
surface of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place 
for representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place 
cannot be measured ?


If you have followed e-mail discussions last year, we discussed that the 
surface of a Physical Feature, including settlements etc., can quite 
well be measured with the new model and *falls

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig]

Dear Francesco, 
You did not violate any rule. My point was simply that the reduction has 
already been accepted. The question was about an adjustment of the scope notes 
so that they were in harmony with the reduced range. 
I had some concern about the reduction but ended with the conclusion that it is 
only physical matter that can be measured in the way the CRM measurement is 
defined. 

We also had a discussion in the chat in the meeting about measuring phenomena 
in a text, the example was the frequency of the  definite article 'the' in a 
work of Shakespeare. I will claim that the frequency is measured by counting 
the number of the occurrences of the three letter sequence with  white space or 
delimiters on each side in a given manuscript or printed text. One may also 
count the number of  'the' when listening to a oral performance of a work, 
still it is a measurement of a physical thing, the sound. From such measurement 
on may deduce and attach properties to the abstract object.  The question is if 
one can directly measure dimensions of non-physical things like temporal 
entities and abstracts - may be.  May be such measurement will be instances of 
a class of human subjective decisions and thus instances of attribute 
assignment?

Best,
Christian-Emil

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Franco Niccolucci via 
Crm-sig 
Sent: 23 March 2021 20:35
To: Francesco Beretta
Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

and you may have noticed that I did not vote - I just wanted to stimulate 
reflection, and I will not bore you anymore. I will reply Martin directly.

Franco

Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus
Technology Director 4CH

Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy


> Il giorno 23 mar 2021, alle ore 19:50, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig 
>  ha scritto:
>
> Dear Martin, Christian-Emil, all,
>
> In order not to block a development that seems to be largely consensual, and 
> considering that my veto apparently violates the SIG rules, I withdraw it and 
> simply vote NO.
>
> If the majority thinks that the problem I have pointed to is not a problem 
> and that the inconsistency between previous versions of the CRM and the new 
> one in relation to the substance of this class is not an issue, especially 
> with respect to monotonicity, I personnally have nothing to add.
>
> With all my best wishes
>
> Francesco
>
>
>
> Le 23.03.21 à 19:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :
>> Dear Francesco,
>>
>> Your concerns well respected, please let me explain a few things:
>>
>> Firstly, this e-vote is not about the reduction of the range of P39 from E1 
>> CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing.
>>
>> The reduction was decided in the last CRM-SIG with good majority after 
>> considering all pros and cons.
>>
>> Following our rules, a decision once made by the CRM-SIG can only be undone 
>> by raising a new issue, providing new additional arguments.
>>
>> Therefore, the use of the VETO right should not be used to undo an orderly 
>> decision taken by the SIG.
>>
>> Nevertheless, let me
>>
>> On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, and 
>>> more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class without 
>>> changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the nominal 
>>> monetary value of a collection of coins" is now excluded.
>>>
>> Firstly,
>>>
>>>
>>> So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the surface 
>>> of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place for 
>>> representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot be 
>>> measured ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check :  "E54 Dimensions are 
>>> associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension.  So not every 
>>> class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70.
>>> However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM 
>>> Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a 
>>> dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent 
>>> that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be measured.
>>> I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to resolve 
>>> this inconsistency."
>>>
>>> Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical things 
>>> is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an abstraction 
>>> from observable things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such 
>>> evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 
>>> Measurement."
>>>
>>> after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the 
>>> issue) we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite 
>>> different 

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig]

and you may have noticed that I did not vote - I just wanted to stimulate 
reflection, and I will not bore you anymore. I will reply Martin directly.

Franco

Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus
Technology Director 4CH

Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy


> Il giorno 23 mar 2021, alle ore 19:50, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Dear Martin, Christian-Emil, all,
> 
> In order not to block a development that seems to be largely consensual, and 
> considering that my veto apparently violates the SIG rules, I withdraw it and 
> simply vote NO.
> 
> If the majority thinks that the problem I have pointed to is not a problem 
> and that the inconsistency between previous versions of the CRM and the new 
> one in relation to the substance of this class is not an issue, especially 
> with respect to monotonicity, I personnally have nothing to add.
> 
> With all my best wishes
> 
> Francesco
> 
> 
> 
> Le 23.03.21 à 19:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :
>> Dear Francesco,
>> 
>> Your concerns well respected, please let me explain a few things:
>> 
>> Firstly, this e-vote is not about the reduction of the range of P39 from E1 
>> CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing.
>> 
>> The reduction was decided in the last CRM-SIG with good majority after 
>> considering all pros and cons.
>> 
>> Following our rules, a decision once made by the CRM-SIG can only be undone 
>> by raising a new issue, providing new additional arguments. 
>> 
>> Therefore, the use of the VETO right should not be used to undo an orderly 
>> decision taken by the SIG.
>> 
>> Nevertheless, let me 
>> 
>> On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, and 
>>> more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class without 
>>> changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the nominal 
>>> monetary value of a collection of coins" is now excluded.
>>> 
>> Firstly, 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the surface 
>>> of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place for 
>>> representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot be 
>>> measured ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check :  "E54 Dimensions are 
>>> associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension.  So not every 
>>> class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70.
>>> However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM 
>>> Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a 
>>> dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent 
>>> that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be measured.
>>> I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to resolve 
>>> this inconsistency."
>>> 
>>> Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical things 
>>> is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an abstraction 
>>> from observable things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such 
>>> evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 
>>> Measurement."
>>> 
>>> after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the 
>>> issue) we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite 
>>> different substance than the long period one.
>>> 
>>> Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is Attribute 
>>> Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I partly agree but it 
>>> seems to me that, given the radical change of substance, the consistency of 
>>> the information produced before version 7.??? will be lost.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new substance, 
>>> restricted in the mentioned sense, and deprecate E16 if wished but leaving 
>>> it as is for the sake of consistency of legacy information and monotonicity 
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Given these arguments, I vote:
>>> 
>>> VETO.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> All the best
>>> 
>>> Francesco
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>>  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] 511 e-vote

[Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig]

Dear Martin, Christian-Emil, all,

In order not to block a development that seems to be largely consensual, 
and considering that my veto apparently violates the SIG rules, I 
withdraw it and simply vote NO.


If the majority thinks that the problem I have pointed to is not a 
problem and that the inconsistency between previous versions of the CRM 
and the new one in relation to the substance of this class is not an 
issue, especially with respect to monotonicity, I personnally have 
nothing to add.


With all my best wishes

Francesco


Le 23.03.21 à 19:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :

Dear Francesco,

Your concerns well respected, please let me explain a few things:

Firstly, this e-vote is not about the reduction of the range of P39 
from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing.


The reduction was decided in the last CRM-SIG with good majority after 
considering all pros and cons.


Following our rules, a decision once made by the CRM-SIG can only be 
undone by raising a new issue, providing new additional arguments.


Therefore, the use of the VETO right should not be used to undo an 
orderly decision taken by the SIG.


Nevertheless, let me

On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:


Dear all,

as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with 
monotonicity, and more largely with substantially changing the 
substance of a class without changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 
but "measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of coins" 
is now _excluded_.



Firstly,



So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the 
surface of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place 
for representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot 
be measured ?



Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check :  "E54 Dimensions 
are associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension.  So 
not every class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents 
of E70.
However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM 
Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a 
dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems 
inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be 
measured.
I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to 
resolve this inconsistency."


Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical 
things is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an 
abstraction from observable things. We can always use Attribute 
Assignment for such evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to 
a text, without using E16 Measurement."


after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the 
issue) we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite 
different substance than the long period one.


Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely 
abstract.



My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is 
Attribute Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I 
partly agree but it seems to me that, given the radical change of 
substance, the consistency of the information produced before version 
7.??? will be lost.



So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new 
substance, restricted in the mentioned sense, and deprecate E16 if 
wished but leaving it as is for the sake of consistency of legacy 
information and monotonicity ?



Given these arguments, I vote:

VETO.


All the best

Francesco





--

  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


___
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] 511 e-vote

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Francesco,

Your concerns well respected, please let me explain a few things:

Firstly, this e-vote is not about the reduction of the range of P39 from 
E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing.


The reduction was decided in the last CRM-SIG with good majority after 
considering all pros and cons.


Following our rules, a decision once made by the CRM-SIG can only be 
undone by raising a new issue, providing new additional arguments.


Therefore, the use of the VETO right should not be used to undo an 
orderly decision taken by the SIG.


Nevertheless, let me

On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:


Dear all,

as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, 
and more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class 
without changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the 
nominal monetary value of a collection of coins" is now _excluded_.



Firstly,



So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the 
surface of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place 
for representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot 
be measured ?



Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check :  "E54 Dimensions 
are associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension.  So 
not every class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents 
of E70.
However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM 
Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a 
dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems 
inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be 
measured.
I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to 
resolve this inconsistency."


Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical 
things is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an 
abstraction from observable things. We can always use Attribute 
Assignment for such evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to a 
text, without using E16 Measurement."


after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the 
issue) we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite 
different substance than the long period one.


Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract.


My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is 
Attribute Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I 
partly agree but it seems to me that, given the radical change of 
substance, the consistency of the information produced before version 
7.??? will be lost.



So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new substance, 
restricted in the mentioned sense, and deprecate E16 if wished but 
leaving it as is for the sake of consistency of legacy information and 
monotonicity ?



Given these arguments, I vote:

VETO.


All the best

Francesco





--

 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

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

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Franco,

Now I am fairly confused about with what you actually agree:

You write:

"This concept was, indeed, an Attribute Assignment - quite obviously as 
it is its superclass so every measurement is an attribute assignment. 
But what should be pursued, in my opinion, is the right balance between 
(i) the proliferation of classes and properties and (ii) an excessive 
generalization. I am a bit scared by (i) 200 properties as well as by 
(ii) assigning too wide roles to very general entities. "


Whereas Francesco argues that for *reasons of monotonicity* the range of 
P39 should have been remained at E1 CRM Entity, and that even the scope 
note of E16 Measurement always defined measurement as a result of 
observation without any doubt, the range of P39 should not conform with 
the scope note:


The old scope note begins:
"This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties 
and other values that can be determined by a systematic, objective 
procedure of direct observation of particular states of physical reality."


You argue that the range of P39 to be E1 CRM Entity is NOT an excsessive 
generalization, whereas using E13 for quantitative properties of 
abstract items is an excessive generalization?


Your following statement finds my complete agreement:

"A more philosophical argument would consider that there is no such 
thing as “(pure) observation” as opposed to "abstraction": any 
observation is influenced by the observer. Besides Heisenberg's 
indetermination principle, it is a much debated issue. The Galilean 
method, also known as the scientific one, and the historical method, 
both converge and are to be used in cultural heritage. "


If I am not completely mistaken, you make a coimplication here. Whereas 
the scope note says that observation is *necessary*, you argue that pure 
observation is *not sufficient* for a Measurement.


Of course any "systematic objective procedure" is a product of 
hypothesis and its application. No current scientist would be so naive 
any more. See also "scientific realism" by James Ladyman and others.


I am a bit confused when you make arguments here about missing 
reliability assessment for questioning observation:


Never in my studies and research in physics I have done, seen or heard 
of a measurement without reliability assessment. The scientific method 
of observation that any scientist learns at the university , the 
"systematic objective procedure", can only be objective in terms of a 
reliability assessment and error margins. Nothing in the scope note of 
E16 implies that the results are 100% precise and true. Reliability can 
not be seperated from result.


By the way, we should always be careful citing quantum mechanics. 
Heisenberg's indetermination principle and the following quantum 
mechanical laws very precisely, numerically, define *how* the observer 
influences the observed system. This is not questioning observation as a 
method. It clarifies what you observe.


You write:

"So the justification that measurement is observation does not simplify, 
rather it complicates the decision."


Neither did the scope note of E16 ever state that "measurement *is* 
observation", nor was that the subject of the requested e-vote.


Let me add however, that

  (i) We model bottom up, and the CRMbase is not the place for a 
complete theory of measurement.


  (ii) Therefore the whole issue 511 was very conservative to be 
consistent with the intended scope of E16, as long as we have no better, 
consistent formulation.


  (iii) As long as we have no better consistent specific formulation, 
we always resort to the next superclass, which is E13 so far. This is 
not overloading E13. It is "epistemic humility" about E16.


  (iv) We have connected Issue 511 in the last SIG to producing a much 
more comprehensive representation of measurement.


We will be pleased to come back to the reliability assessment. 
Currently, error margins are foreseen for P90 has value.


As usual, I have the feeling that in reality, objectively😉, we agree???😁


All the best,

Martin



On 3/23/2021 5:10 PM, Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig wrote:

I strongly agree with Francesco.

Some time ago I wrote a paper about reliability assessment, suggesting that it 
could be considered a sort of measurement, perhaps a subclass of E16. It was 
not a proposal for the CRM SIG, just considerations about the fact that at 
present there is no satisfactory attribute to qualify reliability. This issue 
is very important for example to re-use data according to the R part of the 
FAIR principles. Such “attribute” needs to be machine-actionable and available 
for composition if data undergo several re-use passages: in sum, it has to be 
quantitative and preferably numeric, in the broad scope of E60 Number. Thus if 
one re-processes data that are 80% reliable also the results will be 80% 
reliable, in the best case, or less. Another processing with an error of 70% 
will produce new dat

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig]

I strongly agree with Francesco. 

Some time ago I wrote a paper about reliability assessment, suggesting that it 
could be considered a sort of measurement, perhaps a subclass of E16. It was 
not a proposal for the CRM SIG, just considerations about the fact that at 
present there is no satisfactory attribute to qualify reliability. This issue 
is very important for example to re-use data according to the R part of the 
FAIR principles. Such “attribute” needs to be machine-actionable and available 
for composition if data undergo several re-use passages: in sum, it has to be 
quantitative and preferably numeric, in the broad scope of E60 Number. Thus if 
one re-processes data that are 80% reliable also the results will be 80% 
reliable, in the best case, or less. Another processing with an error of 70% 
will produce new data reliable at 56%. I remember a famous project where 
archive documents were digitized, OCR-ed and then mined with NLP: nobody ever 
calculated the reliability of the final results. 

So the topic is not irrelevant, nor just a matter of gut feeling.

This concept was, indeed, an Attribute Assignment - quite obviously as it is 
its superclass so every measurement is an attribute assignment. But what should 
be pursued, in my opinion, is the right balance between (i) the proliferation 
of classes and properties and (ii) an excessive generalization. I am a bit 
scared by (i) 200 properties as well as by (ii) assigning too wide roles to 
very general entities. 

Occam stated "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” and this in my 
opinion might possibly apply to the 200 properties. I would add that also 
unnecessary (praeter necessitatem) simplification should be better avoided, 
like in this case putting everything into a generic attribute assignment except 
some privileged activities that have a name (and a life) of their own.

A more philosophical argument would consider that there is no such thing as 
“(pure) observation” as opposed to "abstraction": any observation is influenced 
by the observer. Besides Heisenberg's indetermination principle, it is a much 
debated issue. The Galilean method, also known as the scientific one, and the 
historical method, both converge and are to be used in cultural heritage. So 
the justification that measurement is observation does not simplify, rather it 
complicates the decision.

Regards

Franco

By the way, for those who don’t know Latin, Occam’s razor means: "Entities 
should not be multiplied beyond necessity”. 


Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus
Technology Director 4CH

Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy


> Il giorno 23 mar 2021, alle ore 14:20, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Dear all,
> as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, and 
> more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class without 
> changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the nominal monetary 
> value of a collection of coins" is now excluded. 
> 
> So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the surface 
> of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place for representing 
> a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot be measured ?
> 
> Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check :  "E54 Dimensions are 
> associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension.  So not every 
> class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70.
> However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM Entity, 
> meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a dimension, it can 
> be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent that an entity that 
> cannot have dimensions can still be measured.
> I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to resolve 
> this inconsistency."
> Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical things 
> is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an abstraction 
> from observable things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such 
> evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 
> Measurement."
> after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the issue) 
> we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite different 
> substance than the long period one.
> Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract.
> 
> My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is Attribute 
> Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I partly agree but it 
> seems to me that, given the radical change of substance, the consistency of 
> the information produced before version 7.??? will be lost.
> 
> So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new substance, 
> restricted in the mentione

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig]

Hm, Your veto  has the consequence that the issue has to be postponed to the 
next physical(that is electronical) meeting. This leaves us in an interesting 
situation.

​"At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and 
voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 CRM 
Entity to E18 Physical Thing. "

So this is not covered by the veto.  What is postponed is not the decision to 
reduce the  range  of P39 measured but the evaluation of the

" Homework [...] to check how scope notes and related properties are affected, 
recommend changes and call an e-vote for those. "

Best,

Christian-Emil


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Francesco Beretta via 
Crm-sig 
Sent: 23 March 2021 14:20
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote


Dear all,

as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, and more 
largely with substantially changing the substance of a class without changing 
its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the nominal monetary value of a 
collection of coins" is now excluded.


So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the surface of 
Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place for representing a 
geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot be measured ?


Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check :  "E54 Dimensions are 
associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension.  So not every 
class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70.
However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM Entity, 
meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a dimension, it can 
be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent that an entity that 
cannot have dimensions can still be measured.
I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to resolve 
this inconsistency."

Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical things is 
that it does not constitute an observation process, but an abstraction from 
observable things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such evaluations. 
So, we can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 Measurement."

after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the issue) we 
vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite different substance 
than the long period one.

Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract.


My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is Attribute 
Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I partly agree but it 
seems to me that, given the radical change of substance, the consistency of the 
information produced before version 7.??? will be lost.


So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new substance, 
restricted in the mentioned sense, and deprecate E16 if wished but leaving it 
as is for the sake of consistency of legacy information and monotonicity ?


Given these arguments, I vote:

VETO.


All the best

Francesco




Le 19.03.21 à 11:37, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig a écrit :

Dear all,

At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and 
voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 CRM 
Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check how scope notes 
and related properties are affected, recommend changes and call an e-vote for 
those. I am listing the required changes below. With regards to those changes, 
the possible votes are:

  *   Yes = accept/agree
  *   No = do not accept/agree
  *   Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, but 
there is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish to stop 
the proposed change from happening, in which case you should also write a 
justification and reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is 
unacceptable because it violates the following principle...')


1. E16 Measurement


Changed to clarify that E16 Measurement requires observation, including an 
update to an example and the removal of two examples.

From:

Subclass of:

E13 Attribute Assignment

Scope note:

This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties and 
other values that can be determined by a systematic, objective procedure of 
direct observation of particular states of physical reality. Properties of 
instances of E90 Symbolic Object may be measured by observing some of their 
representative carriers which may or may not be named explicitly. In the case 
that the carrier can be named, the property P16 used specific object (was used 
for): should be used to indicate the instance(s) of E18 Physical Thing that was 
used as the empirical basis for the measurement activity.

Examples include measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of coins 
or the running time of a movie on a specific video cassette.

The E16 Meas

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, 
and more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class 
without changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the 
nominal monetary value of a collection of coins" is now _excluded_.



So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the 
surface of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place for 
representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot be 
measured ?



Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check :  "E54 Dimensions are 
associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension.  So not 
every class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70.
However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM 
Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a 
dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems 
inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be 
measured.
I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to 
resolve this inconsistency."


Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical 
things is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an 
abstraction from observable things. We can always use Attribute 
Assignment for such evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to a 
text, without using E16 Measurement."


after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the 
issue) we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite 
different substance than the long period one.


Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract.


My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is Attribute 
Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I partly agree but 
it seems to me that, given the radical change of substance, the 
consistency of the information produced before version 7.??? will be lost.



So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new substance, 
restricted in the mentioned sense, and deprecate E16 if wished but 
leaving it as is for the sake of consistency of legacy information and 
monotonicity ?



Given these arguments, I vote:

VETO.


All the best

Francesco




Le 19.03.21 à 11:37, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig a écrit :


Dear all,

At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 
and voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 
measured from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was 
assigned to check how scope notes and related properties are affected, 
recommend changes and call an e-vote for those. I am listing the 
required changes below. With regards to those changes, the possible 
votes are:


  * Yes = accept/agree
  * No = do not accept/agree
  * Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes,
but there is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if
you wish to stop the proposed change from happening, in which case
you should also write a justification and reformulate the issue
(e.g.: 'VETO, this change is unacceptable because it violates the
following principle...')

*
*

*1. E16 Measurement*


Changed to clarify that E16 Measurement requires observation, 
including an update to an example and the removal of two examples.



*From:*

Subclass of:

E13 <#_toc7577> Attribute Assignment

Scope note:

This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical 
properties and other values that can be determined by a systematic, 
objective procedure of direct observation of particular states of 
physical reality. Properties of instances of E90 Symbolic Object may 
be measured by observing some of their representative carriers which 
may or may not be named explicitly. In the case that the carrier can 
be named, the property P16 used specific object (was used for): should 
be used to indicate the instance(s) of E18 Physical Thing that was 
used as the empirical basis for the measurement activity.


Examples include measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection 
of coins or the running time of a movie on a specific video cassette.


The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as 
yardsticks or radiation detection devices. The interest is in the 
method and care applied, so that the reliability of the result may be 
judged at a later stage, or research continued on the associated 
documents. The date of the event is important for dimensions, which 
may change value over time, such as the length of an object subject to 
shrinkage. Methods and devices employed should be associated with 
instances of E16 Measurement by properties such as P33 used specific 
technique: E29 Design or Procedure, P125 used object of type: E55 
Type, P16 used specific object (was used for): E70 Thing, whereas 
basic techniques such as "carbon 14 dating" should be encoded using P2 
has type (is type of): E55 Type. Details of m

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig]

YES

Thanks everyone!

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 6:42 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and
> voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1
> CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check how scope
> notes and related properties are affected, recommend changes and call an
> e-vote for those. I am listing the required changes below. With regards to
> those changes, the possible votes are:
>
>- Yes = accept/agree
>- No = do not accept/agree
>- Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes,
>but there is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish
>to stop the proposed change from happening, in which case you should also
>write a justification and reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change
>is unacceptable because it violates the following principle...')
>
>
> *1. E16 Measurement*
>
>
> Changed to clarify that E16 Measurement requires observation, including an
> update to an example and the removal of two examples.
>
> *From:*
>
> Subclass of:
>
> E13 <#m_-2834491951268162862__toc7577> Attribute Assignment
>
> Scope note:
>
> This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties
> and other values that can be determined by a systematic, objective
> procedure of direct observation of particular states of physical reality.
> Properties of instances of E90 Symbolic Object may be measured by observing
> some of their representative carriers which may or may not be named
> explicitly. In the case that the carrier can be named, the property P16
> used specific object (was used for): should be used to indicate the
> instance(s) of E18 Physical Thing that was used as the empirical basis for
> the measurement activity.
>
> Examples include measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of
> coins or the running time of a movie on a specific video cassette.
>
> The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks
> or radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care
> applied, so that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later
> stage, or research continued on the associated documents. The date of the
> event is important for dimensions, which may change value over time, such
> as the length of an object subject to shrinkage. Methods and devices
> employed should be associated with instances of E16 Measurement by
> properties such as P33 used specific technique: E29 Design or Procedure,
> P125 used object of type: E55 Type, P16 used specific object (was used
> for): E70 Thing, whereas basic techniques such as "carbon 14 dating" should
> be encoded using P2 has type (is type of): E55 Type. Details of methods and
> devices reused or reusable in other instances of E16 Measurement should be
> documented for these entities rather than the measurements themselves,
> whereas details of particular execution may be documented by free text or
> by instantiating adequate sub-activities, if the detail may be of interest
> for an overarching query.
>
> Regardless whether a measurement is made by an instrument or by human
> senses, it represents the initial transition from physical reality to
> information without any other documented information object in between
> within the reasoning chain that would represent the result of the
> interaction of the observer or device with reality. Therefore, inferring
> properties of depicted items using image material, such as satellite
> images, is not regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement, but as a
> subsequent instance of E13 Attribute Assignment. Rather, only the
> production of the images, understood as arrays of radiation intensities, is
> regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement. The same reasoning holds for
> other sensor data.
>
> Examples:
>
>- measurement of height of silver cup 232 on the 31st August 1997
>(fictitious)
>- the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 [an about
>400.000 year old complete Old Palaeolithic wooden spear found in
>Schoeningen, Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995] (Kouwenhoven, 1997)
>- The pixel size of the jpeg version of Titian’s painting Bacchus and
>Ariadne from 1520–3, as freely downloadable from the National Gallery in
>London’s web page
>
>
>is 581600 pixels.
>- The scope note of E21 Person in the Definition of the CIDOC
>Conceptual Reference Model Version 5.0.4 as downloaded from
>
>
>consists of 77 words.
>
>
> In First Order Logic:
>
> E16(x) ⇒ E13(x)
>
> Properties:
>
> P39

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Stefan Gradmann via Crm-sig]

nd processes may be measured, 
e.g., the number of words in a text, or the duration of an event.

Examples:

  *   31 August 1997 measurement of height of silver cup 232 (E16) measured 
silver cup 232 (E22) (fictitious)

In First Order Logic:

P39(x,y) ? E16(x)

P39(x,y) ? E1(y)

P39(x,y) ? P140(x,y)


To:


Domain:

E16 Measurement

Range:

E18 Physical Thing

Subproperty of:

E13 Attribute Assignment. P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by): E1 
CRM Entity

Quantification:

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

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of E16 Measurement with the instance of 
E18 Physical Thing upon which it acted. The instance of E16 Measurement is 
specific to the measured object. An instance of E18 Physical Thing may be 
measured more than once with different results, constituting different 
instances of E16 Measurement.

Examples:

  *   31 August 1997 measurement of height of silver cup 232 (E16) measured 
silver cup 232 (E22) (fictitious)
  *   the carbon 14 dating of the ?Schoeninger Speer II? in 1996 (E16) measured 
the ?Schoeninger Speer II? (E22) [The carbon 14 dating of an approximately 
400.000 year old complete Old Palaeolithic wooden spear found in Schoeningen, 
Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995. See also E16 Measurement] (Kouwenhoven, 1997)


In First Order Logic:

P39(x,y) ? E16(x)

P39(x,y) ? E18(y)

P39(x,y) ? P140(x,y)



3. P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by)



Only updated the reference P39 measured as a sub-property of P140.

From:


Superproperty of:

E14 Condition Assessment. P34 concerned (was assessed by): E18 Physical Thing

E16 Measurement. P39 measured (was measured by): E1 CRM Entity

E17 Type Assignment. P41 classified (was classified by): E1 CRM Entity


To:


Superproperty of:

E14 Condition Assessment. P34 concerned (was assessed by): E18 Physical Thing

E16 Measurement. P39 measured (was measured by): E18 Physical Thing

E17 Type Assignment. P41 classified (was classified by): E1 CRM Entity



4. P40 observed dimension (was observed in)

Added a second example:

  *   the carbon 14 dating of the ?Schoeninger Speer II? in 1996 (E16) observed 
dimension the carbon 14 based temporal distance from 1996 to the growth of the 
wood of the ?Schoeninger Speer II? [The carbon 14 dating of an approximately 
400.000 year old complete Old Palaeolithic wooden spear found in Schoeningen, 
Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995. See also E16 Measurement] (Kouwenhoven, 1997)

5. P43 has dimension (is dimension of)


Modified scope note to indicate that the long path through P39i was measured by 
applies to E18 Physical Thing and not E70 Thing (note that this change does not 
affect the domain of P43).



From:


Domain:

E70 Thing

Range:

E54 Dimension

Quantification:

one to many, dependent (0,n:1,1)

Scope note:

This property records a E54 Dimension of some E70 Thing.

This property is a shortcut of the more fully developed path from E70 Thing 
through P39i was measured by, E16 Measurement, P40 observed dimension, to E54 
Dimension. It offers no information about how and when an E54 Dimension was 
established, nor by whom.

An instance of E54 Dimension is specific to an instance of E70 Thing.

Examples:

  *   silver cup 232 (E22) has dimension height of silver cup 232 (E54) has 
unit (P91) mm (E58), has value (P90) 224 (E60) (fictitious)

In First Order Logic:

P43(x,y) ? E70(x)

P43(x,y) ? E54(y)

P43(x,y) ? (?z) [E16(z) ? P39i(x,z) ? P40(z,y)]


To:


Domain:

E70 Thing

Range:

E54 Dimension

Quantification:

one to many, dependent (0,n:1,1)

Scope note:

This property records a E54 Dimension of some E70 Thing.

It offers no information about how and when an instance of E54 Dimension was 
established, nor by whom. In the case that the recorded property is a result of 
a measurement of an instance of E18 Physical Thing, this property is a shortcut 
of the more fully developed path from E18 Physical Thing through P39i was 
measured by, E16 Measurement, P40 observed dimension, to E54 Dimension. It 
offers no information about how and when an E54 Dimension was established, nor 
by whom. Knowledge about an instance of E54 Dimension need not be result of a 
measurement; it may be the result of evaluating data or other information, 
which should be documented as an instance of E13 Attribute Assignment.

An instance of E54 Dimension is specific to an instance of E70 Thing.

Examples:

  *   silver cup 232 (E22) has dimension height of silver cup 232 (E54) has 
unit (P91) mm (E58), has value (P90) 224 (E60) (fictitious)

In First Order Logic:

P43(x,y) ? E70(x)

P43(x,y) ? E54(y)

P43(x,y) ? (?z) [E16(z) ? P39i(x,z) ? P40(z,y)]



Please send your e-votes by the 26th of March.



All the best,



Thanasis


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20210323/b24fc191/attachment.html>

--

Subject: Digest Footer

_

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Hiebel, Gerald via Crm-sig]

YES,
Best,
Gerald

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Athanasios Velios via 
Crm-sig 
Reply to: "thana...@softicon.co.uk" 
Date: Friday, 19. March 2021 at 11:49
To: crm-sig 
Subject: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote


Dear all,

At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and 
voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 CRM 
Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check how scope notes 
and related properties are affected, recommend changes and call an e-vote for 
those. I am listing the required changes below. With regards to those changes, 
the possible votes are:

  *   Yes = accept/agree
  *   No = do not accept/agree
  *   Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, but 
there is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish to stop 
the proposed change from happening, in which case you should also write a 
justification and reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is 
unacceptable because it violates the following principle...')



1. E16 Measurement



Changed to clarify that E16 Measurement requires observation, including an 
update to an example and the removal of two examples.

From:

Subclass of:

E13 Attribute Assignment

Scope note:

This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties and 
other values that can be determined by a systematic, objective procedure of 
direct observation of particular states of physical reality. Properties of 
instances of E90 Symbolic Object may be measured by observing some of their 
representative carriers which may or may not be named explicitly. In the case 
that the carrier can be named, the property P16 used specific object (was used 
for): should be used to indicate the instance(s) of E18 Physical Thing that was 
used as the empirical basis for the measurement activity.

Examples include measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of coins 
or the running time of a movie on a specific video cassette.

The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or 
radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care applied, so 
that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later stage, or research 
continued on the associated documents. The date of the event is important for 
dimensions, which may change value over time, such as the length of an object 
subject to shrinkage. Methods and devices employed should be associated with 
instances of E16 Measurement by properties such as P33 used specific technique: 
E29 Design or Procedure, P125 used object of type: E55 Type, P16 used specific 
object (was used for): E70 Thing, whereas basic techniques such as "carbon 14 
dating" should be encoded using P2 has type (is type of): E55 Type. Details of 
methods and devices reused or reusable in other instances of E16 Measurement 
should be documented for these entities rather than the measurements 
themselves, whereas details of particular execution may be documented by free 
text or by instantiating adequate sub-activities, if the detail may be of 
interest for an overarching query.

Regardless whether a measurement is made by an instrument or by human senses, 
it represents the initial transition from physical reality to information 
without any other documented information object in between within the reasoning 
chain that would represent the result of the interaction of the observer or 
device with reality. Therefore, inferring properties of depicted items using 
image material, such as satellite images, is not regarded as an instance of E16 
Measurement, but as a subsequent instance of E13 Attribute Assignment. Rather, 
only the production of the images, understood as arrays of radiation 
intensities, is regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement. The same reasoning 
holds for other sensor data.

Examples:

  *   measurement of height of silver cup 232 on the 31st August 1997 
(fictitious)
  *   the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 [an about 
400.000 year old complete Old Palaeolithic wooden spear found in Schoeningen, 
Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995] (Kouwenhoven, 1997)
  *   The pixel size of the jpeg version of Titian’s painting Bacchus and 
Ariadne from 1520–3, as freely downloadable from the National Gallery in 
London’s web page 

 is 581600 pixels.
  *   The scope note of E21 Person in the Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual 
Reference Model Version 5.0.4 as downloaded from 

 consists of 77 words.

In First Order Logic:

E16(x) ⇒ E13(x)

Properties:

P39 measured (was measured by): E1 CRM Entity

P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension


To:


Subclass of:

E13 Att

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Weiss Christian SNM via Crm-sig]

Yes!

Christian

Von: Crm-sig  Im Auftrag von Christian-Emil Smith 
Ore via Crm-sig
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. März 2021 12:29
An: crm-sig 
Betreff: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote


​Yes

Chr-Emil Ore


From: Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf 
of Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
Sent: 19 March 2021 11:37
To: crm-sig
Subject: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote


Dear all,

At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and 
voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 CRM 
Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check how scope notes 
and related properties are affected, recommend changes and call an e-vote for 
those. I am listing the required changes below. With regards to those changes, 
the possible votes are:

  *   Yes = accept/agree
  *   No = do not accept/agree
  *   Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, but 
there is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish to stop 
the proposed change from happening, in which case you should also write a 
justification and reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is 
unacceptable because it violates the following principle...')



1. E16 Measurement



Changed to clarify that E16 Measurement requires observation, including an 
update to an example and the removal of two examples.

From:

Subclass of:

E13 Attribute Assignment

Scope note:

This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties and 
other values that can be determined by a systematic, objective procedure of 
direct observation of particular states of physical reality. Properties of 
instances of E90 Symbolic Object may be measured by observing some of their 
representative carriers which may or may not be named explicitly. In the case 
that the carrier can be named, the property P16 used specific object (was used 
for): should be used to indicate the instance(s) of E18 Physical Thing that was 
used as the empirical basis for the measurement activity.

Examples include measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of coins 
or the running time of a movie on a specific video cassette.

The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or 
radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care applied, so 
that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later stage, or research 
continued on the associated documents. The date of the event is important for 
dimensions, which may change value over time, such as the length of an object 
subject to shrinkage. Methods and devices employed should be associated with 
instances of E16 Measurement by properties such as P33 used specific technique: 
E29 Design or Procedure, P125 used object of type: E55 Type, P16 used specific 
object (was used for): E70 Thing, whereas basic techniques such as "carbon 14 
dating" should be encoded using P2 has type (is type of): E55 Type. Details of 
methods and devices reused or reusable in other instances of E16 Measurement 
should be documented for these entities rather than the measurements 
themselves, whereas details of particular execution may be documented by free 
text or by instantiating adequate sub-activities, if the detail may be of 
interest for an overarching query.

Regardless whether a measurement is made by an instrument or by human senses, 
it represents the initial transition from physical reality to information 
without any other documented information object in between within the reasoning 
chain that would represent the result of the interaction of the observer or 
device with reality. Therefore, inferring properties of depicted items using 
image material, such as satellite images, is not regarded as an instance of E16 
Measurement, but as a subsequent instance of E13 Attribute Assignment. Rather, 
only the production of the images, understood as arrays of radiation 
intensities, is regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement. The same reasoning 
holds for other sensor data.

Examples:

  *   measurement of height of silver cup 232 on the 31st August 1997 
(fictitious)
  *   the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 [an about 
400.000 year old complete Old Palaeolithic wooden spear found in Schoeningen, 
Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995] (Kouwenhoven, 1997)
  *   The pixel size of the jpeg version of Titian’s painting Bacchus and 
Ariadne from 1520–3, as freely downloadable from the National Gallery in 
London’s web page 

 is 581600 pixels.
  *   The scope note of E21 Person in the Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual 
Reference Model Version 5.0.4 as downloaded from 

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig]

​Yes

Chr-Emil Ore


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Athanasios Velios via 
Crm-sig 
Sent: 19 March 2021 11:37
To: crm-sig
Subject: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote


Dear all,

At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and 
voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 CRM 
Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check how scope notes 
and related properties are affected, recommend changes and call an e-vote for 
those. I am listing the required changes below. With regards to those changes, 
the possible votes are:

  *   Yes = accept/agree
  *   No = do not accept/agree
  *   Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, but 
there is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish to stop 
the proposed change from happening, in which case you should also write a 
justification and reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is 
unacceptable because it violates the following principle...')


1. E16 Measurement


Changed to clarify that E16 Measurement requires observation, including an 
update to an example and the removal of two examples.

From:

Subclass of:

E13 Attribute Assignment

Scope note:

This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties and 
other values that can be determined by a systematic, objective procedure of 
direct observation of particular states of physical reality. Properties of 
instances of E90 Symbolic Object may be measured by observing some of their 
representative carriers which may or may not be named explicitly. In the case 
that the carrier can be named, the property P16 used specific object (was used 
for): should be used to indicate the instance(s) of E18 Physical Thing that was 
used as the empirical basis for the measurement activity.

Examples include measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of coins 
or the running time of a movie on a specific video cassette.

The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or 
radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care applied, so 
that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later stage, or research 
continued on the associated documents. The date of the event is important for 
dimensions, which may change value over time, such as the length of an object 
subject to shrinkage. Methods and devices employed should be associated with 
instances of E16 Measurement by properties such as P33 used specific technique: 
E29 Design or Procedure, P125 used object of type: E55 Type, P16 used specific 
object (was used for): E70 Thing, whereas basic techniques such as "carbon 14 
dating" should be encoded using P2 has type (is type of): E55 Type. Details of 
methods and devices reused or reusable in other instances of E16 Measurement 
should be documented for these entities rather than the measurements 
themselves, whereas details of particular execution may be documented by free 
text or by instantiating adequate sub-activities, if the detail may be of 
interest for an overarching query.

Regardless whether a measurement is made by an instrument or by human senses, 
it represents the initial transition from physical reality to information 
without any other documented information object in between within the reasoning 
chain that would represent the result of the interaction of the observer or 
device with reality. Therefore, inferring properties of depicted items using 
image material, such as satellite images, is not regarded as an instance of E16 
Measurement, but as a subsequent instance of E13 Attribute Assignment. Rather, 
only the production of the images, understood as arrays of radiation 
intensities, is regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement. The same reasoning 
holds for other sensor data.

Examples:

  *   measurement of height of silver cup 232 on the 31st August 1997 
(fictitious)
  *   the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 [an about 
400.000 year old complete Old Palaeolithic wooden spear found in Schoeningen, 
Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995] (Kouwenhoven, 1997)
  *   The pixel size of the jpeg version of Titian’s painting Bacchus and 
Ariadne from 1520–3, as freely downloadable from the National Gallery in 
London’s web page 

 is 581600 pixels.
  *   The scope note of E21 Person in the Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual 
Reference Model Version 5.0.4 as downloaded from 

 consists of 77 words.

In First Order Logic:

E16(x) ⇒ E13(x)

Properties:

P39 measured (was measured by): E1 CRM Entity

P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension



To:


Subclass of:

E13 Attribute Assignment

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 19.03.2021 um 11:37 schrieb Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and 
> voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 
> CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check how scope 
> notes and related properties are affected, recommend changes and call an 
> e-vote for those. I am listing the required changes below. With regards to 
> those changes, the possible votes are: 
> 
> Yes = accept/agree
> No = do not accept/agree
> Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, but there 
> is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish to stop the 
> proposed change from happening, in which case you should also write a 
> justification and reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is 
> unacceptable because it violates the following principle...')
> 
> 

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