Re: [Crm-sig] Conflicting use of P177

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear Martin,

With (the usual) apologies for the delay. I am attaching the drawing 
with the two examples and the super-properties. I have also marked with 
red arrows how P177 is meant to relate to the range of P34 and P35 based 
on the scope note of P177.


"The direction of the assigned property of type is understood to be from 
the attributed item (the range of property P140 assigned attribute 
to(was attributed by)) to the attribute item (the range of the property 
P141 assigned (was assigned by))"


If I understand your comment about ambiguity of P177, one could deduct 
the following statements for the two examples:


enband core (E22) → has damage → condition state of endband cores (E3)
cover (E22) → has quality → condition state of cover (E3)

or even:

enband core (E22) → has damage → [...] broken (E55)
cover (E22) → has quality → [...] fine (E55)

In that sense: a) there is an equivalence between the two structures and 
b) the range of P177 always defines a property holding between the range 
of P34 and P35.


I suppose what might also be worth discussing is the time validity of 
the condition state in relation to the time of the condition assessment.


Regarding the examples for E3 Condition State, how about the following:

the state of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 in November 2003 [described 
as: of type "fine" after assessing it for the property "quality"] (Honey 
and Pickwoad, 2010)


the state of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 in November 2003 
[described as: of type "broken" after assessing it for the property 
"damage"] (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


All the best,

Thanasis


On 25/07/2024 15:41, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear Thanasi,

Nothing wrong with your work! The point is, that the use of P177 is 
ambiguous for E14 , which points to a condition state. The SIG needs to 
define for E14 how P177 relates to the type of Condition State and/or if 
we regard P177 as the type of a shortcut of Condition State, as a kind 
of "Property Class". I remember that we intended to discuss this, but 
did not assign HW.


Could you make a graphic representation of the examples below, together 
with the relevant super classes and super properties?


Cheers,

Martin

On 23/7/2024 1:41 π.μ., Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
Sorry for responding to this late - these are examples I produced from 
the St. Catherine's condition survey and, as always, happy to improve 
them if needed. I can see that work is needed in FOL, but, Martin, can 
you explain a bit more what you mean by inconsistencies in the 
examples? And what needs to be defined for E14 Condition Assessment? 
You mean, the type of property assigned?


Thank you.

Thanasis

On 11/07/2024 10:47, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

As to be expected, examination of related examples reveals problems:

"P177 assigned property of type" has not been harmonized with the 
subclasses of E13 Attribute assignment. For E15 Identifier 
Assignment, E17 Type Assignment, E16 Measurement, this is 
straightforward, but needs a formulation in FOL and scope notes. For 
E14 Condition Assessment, this still needs to be defined.


The collected examples reveal inconsistent use:

the condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 
by Nicholas Pickwoad in November 2003 (Honey & Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 
(E14) /assigned property of type/ damage (E55.) [‘damage’ refers to a 
property, external to the CIDOC CRM, which connects an instance of a 
physical thing like an endband core (E22) to the type of damage (E55) 
it shows] (Honey & Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 
(E14) /concerned/ the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E22). 
(Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 
(E14) /has identified/ the condition state in November 2003 (E3). 
[which /has type/ broken (E55)] (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


the condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 by 
Nicholas Pickwoad in November 2003 (Honey & Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E14) 
/assigned property of type/ quality (E55). [‘quality’ refers to a 
property, external to the CIDOC CRM, which connects an instance of a 
physical thing like a book cover (E22) to its quality (E55)] (Honey 
and Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E14) 
/concerned/ the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E22). (Honey and 
Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E14) 
/has identified/ the condition state in November 2003 (E3). [which 
/has type/ fine (E55)] (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


Further, these constitute better examples of Condition State than the 
fictitious ones currently used.


Best,

Martin

--
---

Re: [Crm-sig] Conflicting use of P177

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Sorry for responding to this late - these are examples I produced from 
the St. Catherine's condition survey and, as always, happy to improve 
them if needed. I can see that work is needed in FOL, but, Martin, can 
you explain a bit more what you mean by inconsistencies in the examples? 
And what needs to be defined for E14 Condition Assessment? You mean, the 
type of property assigned?


Thank you.

Thanasis

On 11/07/2024 10:47, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

As to be expected, examination of related examples reveals problems:

"P177 assigned property of type" has not been harmonized with the 
subclasses of E13 Attribute assignment. For E15 Identifier Assignment, 
E17 Type Assignment, E16 Measurement, this is straightforward, but needs 
a formulation in FOL and scope notes. For E14 Condition Assessment, this 
still needs to be defined.


The collected examples reveal inconsistent use:

the condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 by 
Nicholas Pickwoad in November 2003 (Honey & Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 
(E14) /assigned property of type/ damage (E55.) [‘damage’ refers to a 
property, external to the CIDOC CRM, which connects an instance of a 
physical thing like an endband core (E22) to the type of damage (E55) it 
shows] (Honey & Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 
(E14) /concerned/ the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E22). (Honey 
and Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 
(E14) /has identified/ the condition state in November 2003 (E3). [which 
/has type/ broken (E55)] (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


the condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 by Nicholas 
Pickwoad in November 2003 (Honey & Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E14) 
/assigned property of type/ quality (E55). [‘quality’ refers to a 
property, external to the CIDOC CRM, which connects an instance of a 
physical thing like a book cover (E22) to its quality (E55)] (Honey and 
Pickwoad, 2010)


The condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E14) 
/concerned/ the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E22). (Honey and Pickwoad, 
2010)


The condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E14) /has 
identified/ the condition state in November 2003 (E3). [which /has type/ 
fine (E55)] (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


Further, these constitute better examples of Condition State than the 
fictitious ones currently used.


Best,

Martin

--

  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

  Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl




 Χωρίς ιούς.www.avast.com 


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

___
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] Issue: Related examples

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear Martin, all,

I think there may be a way to cross-link in the document to specific 
items of bulleted lists, i.e. if we decide to use "see also". It will be 
quite a bit of work and likely prone to errors. I think we need to 
brainstorm about this.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 11/07/2024 10:17, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

There has been invested a great lot of work in related examples, but 
they are not linked, such as:


the examination of MS Sinai Greek 418 by Nicholas Pickwoad in November 
2003 (Honey & Pickwoad, 2010)


The examination of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E13) assigned attribute to MS 
Sinai Greek 418 (E22). (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


The examination of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E13) /assigned/ unsupported 
(E55.) (Honey & Pickwoad, 2010)


The examination of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E13) /assigned property of type/ 
binding structure type (E55). [‘binding structure type’ refers to a 
property, external to the CIDOC CRM, which connects a book (E22) to the 
type of its binding structure (E55)] (Honey & Pickwoad, 2010)


I propose to discuss and decide quickly an effective method for 
connecting these examples. Graphics would also be nice, but a "see also" 
would already be of huge help.


Best,

Martin

--

  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

  Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl




 Χωρίς ιούς.www.avast.com 


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

___
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

[Crm-sig] Issue 657: new example for P32 used general technique

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

In addition to the HW being prepared for 657 to reformulate the scope 
note for P32, I am proposing a new example to replace the fictitious one:


The endbanding of codex S.Ar.20 (E11) used general technique 
blanket-stitch-with-core as primary component (E55). (Boudalis, 2023)


Works cited:

Boudalis, G. (2023) On the edge: Endbands in the Bookibinging Traditions 
of the Eastern Mediterranean, Michigan: The Legacy Press, p.181


All the best,

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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

In version 7.2.3 (if I have the correct file in front of me) we have 
already added the following:


"This property is a part of the fully developed path from E93 Presence 
through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within 
(contains) to E53 Place."


This is the path from E93 Presence instead of E4 Period (both being 
subclasses of E92 Spacetime Volume).


If it applies to both E4 and E93, should we push it a step up to E92 
Spacetime Volume which actually owns P161 has spatial projection in the 
first place?


All the best,

Thanasis

On 02/02/2024 14:15, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Accepted!

But, it seems it should be:

"This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place, where both places 
are defined in the same geometric system, i.e. they are at rest to each 
other.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

in FOL:

P89(x,y) ⇒(∃u) [E18(u) ⋀P157(x,u) ⋀P157(y,u)]

Then we can simplify the FOL of P7, and add the above FOL to P121,122,189

Best,

Martin



On 2/2/2024 12:28 PM, Stephen Stead wrote:


The “However, ” implies that this is an exception to the statement “It 
addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any relationship 
between things or phenomena occupying these places.”, which it is not.


I would suggest that this is removed: so the addition reads:-

This property is also part of the fully developed path implied by P7 
/took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 has spatial 
projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, where both 
places are defined in the same geometric system.


Stephen Stead

Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013

ste...@paveprime.com

*From:*Crm-sig  *On Behalf Of *Martin 
Doerr via Crm-sig

*Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:05 PM
*To:* crm-sig 
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 656 Homework

Dear all,

I suggest the following addition to the scope note of P89, in yellow:


P89 falls within (contains)

Domain:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Range:

E53 <#_toc8104> Place

Quantification:

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

Scope note:

This property identifies an instance of E53 Place that falls wholly 
within the extent of another instance of E53 Place.


It addresses spatial containment only and does not imply any 
relationship between things or phenomena occupying these places.


However, this property is also part of the fully developed path 
implied by P7 /took place at (witnessed), /from E4 Period through P161 
has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within to E53 Place, 
where both places are defined in the same geometric system.


This property is transitive and reflexive.

Examples:

The area covered by the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (E53) /falls 
within/ the area of Salisbury Plain (E53). (Pryor, 2016)


In first-order logic:

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(x)

P89(x,y) ⇒E53(y)

[P89(x,y) ∧P89(y,z)] ⇒ P89(x,z)

P89(x,x)

--

  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

  Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl



--

  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

  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

[Crm-sig] nomisma.org

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Has anyone done a review or mapping to/from the nomisma.org ontology? 
Any thoughts to share?


All the best,

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

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue, missing part of type

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all, Martin,

Looking for things without certain types of features is indeed very 
useful. NTP46 and NTP56 are meant to do exactly that (if you have the 
time check 
https://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/typed-properties-and-negative-typed-properties-dealing-type-observations-and-negative-1 
and also here: https://github.com/linked-conservation-data/crmntp )


I agree with Athina, if I understand Martin's point correctly, the 
proposed property "misses part of type" brings the added semantics of 
the part being there originally on purpose. I do not think it is 
necessary to introduce such a property for two reasons:


1) In terms of retrieval, being able to juxtapose

E18 Physical Thing → P46 is composed of → E18 Physical Thing
E18 Physical Thing → TP46 is composed of physical thing of type → E55 Type
E18 Physical Thing → NTP46 is not composed of physical thing of type → 
E55 Type


is enough for typical research scenarios. Also my understanding is that 
from P46 or P56 we cannot deduct any intentionality during production. 
It is just a statement about parts.


2) One can point to technique types or design and procedures to express 
the original elements of the object if necessary.


The choice of the type of things that are marked as non-existing depends 
on the expertise of the observer, the mini closed world that they 
decided to set, any existing types that are known etc. It is a question 
of types, not of properties, right?


For damage, I often use S18 Alteration from CRMsci to express things 
being changed without an agent. Isn't that appropriate?


All the best,

Thanasis

On 20/10/2023 15:20, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

Indeed, I see two characteristic cases:

A) broken surfaces:

This is characteristic for statues, which miss heads or limbs, but also 
for architectural elements. The Roman statues without heads have 
characteristic places where to place the head. There is the reasoning 
that people hardly produced a statue with a broken-off arm in antiquity. 
These parts have not been discrete before being broken of. In other 
cases, there may be traces of mortar or other cement to the connected 
component, or damaged joining features, such as corrupted screw holes etc.


B) If an object is found in a context of /use/, rather than in a 
/factory/, we can assume that it contained all essential components.


I agree with Oeyvind that a part removal is not adequate for a 
deterioration happening when some objects down etc. Therefore I raised 
the issue, because there is no obvious workaround in CRM currently.


The property should be used when there is enough plausibility that the 
object was complete. I do not assume someone went to a battle field with 
a chariot without wheels. Even if, the cases are so marginal they are 
irrelevant for the purpose of the CRM.



See also our paper, in which we analyzed a lot of situations:

DOI:10.1007/3-540-45581-7_31 

Corpus ID: 46464138
A Metamodel for Part - Whole Relationships for Reasoning on Missing 
Parts and Reconstruction
M. Doerr , D. 
Plexousakis 
, C. 
Bekiari 
Published in International Conference on Conceptual Modeling 
 ER 2001: Conceptual 
Modeling — ER 2001 
 pp 412–425


Best,

Martin


On 10/17/2023 10:33 AM, athinak wrote:

Dear Martin,

maybe I misunderstood, but how can we explicitly know thw 
circumstances of leading to this state, described by the property? 
what I mean is, that this property seems to me related to the 
definition of situations and to inference (how can we assert the 
validity of missing parts? and what about the FOL? can it support it?
It seems useful but isn't it a kind of inference? just a question or 
maybe I am missing something


Athina

On 2023-10-16 22:12, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

In the discussion about typed negative properties, I have the
impression that a property:
"misses part of type" may be utterly useful for finding archaeological
object in a global search,
such as the head or arms of a statue, characteristic elements of
buildings etc.
Admittedly, it poses the question where to stop the non-existence, and
what missing parts would have a chance to be found.
Would a part lost by accident be a part removal? Would that be an
alternative way of documenting missing parts?

Opinions?

Best,

Martin

--

 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

[Crm-sig] Issue 604: Make SIG meetings more sustainable

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Just following up with this discussion following Eleni's reminders for 
HW. I think we have relaxed into the pattern of two hybrid meetings per 
year, which is a reasonable compromise while there are still regular 
participants who can cover their travel expenses.


From the discussion so far it seems that at the moment linking the SIG 
meetings with other conferences may not be a preferred option.


I am happy with the hybrid meetings provided that we make a bit of an 
effort in terms of the audio/visual setup. I.e. sometimes online 
participants are side-lined in the discussion as "less" present in the 
"room".


Some proposals to consider:

1) We should make decent conference microphones a requirement for 
hosting institutions so that online participants can hear all 
discussions in the room without having to interrupt and request speakers 
to repeat (and someone in the room having to move the mic, etc.).


2) In the physical room, we should have two screens connected to the 
machine running zoom, one screen with the faces of the online 
participants and another screen for screen sharing. Zoom supports this 
kind of setup.


If these make sense and they are not too demanding requirements, then 
maybe we can accept them and close this issue for now.


All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] Extensions WG text

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

I am forwarding an email from Steve to the list. For some reason his 
original email did not make it through.


All the best,

Thanasis

-
Here is the proposed text for the frame of reference for Extension 
Working Groups for discussion on Wednesday.



In order to facilitate progress on issues concerning CRMbase and the 
overall community, it is suggested that work on extensions be devolved 
to separate Working Groups. The membership of such WGs would be 
self-selecting from the community of specialists in the relevant area.


Each group would then craft a motivation statement that would cover at 
least the following points:


i) The topics to be addressed

ii) The process that will be followed

iii) The timetable for the activities

Iv) What, if any, support will be required from the main body of the SIG.

This statement should be presented to the main SIG at the next meeting.

When the Topics detailed in the motivational statement have been dealt 
with the WG should report back to the main body of the SIG. To 
facilitate this, two documents should be circulated at least 2 weeks 
before the SIG meeting. The first is a complete and fully revised copy 
of the extension document that incorporates all the recommendations that 
the WG are making. This revised extension document should be formatted 
using the latest templates and best practice guidance to facilitate the 
production of web and serialisation resources. In the unlikely event of 
the WG asking for alternatives to be selected from by the main body of 
the SIG, then each possible outcome should have a complete extension 
document prepared. This will facilitate the quick publication of the 
selected alternative.


  The second submission is a detailed change document. It 
should be divided into two parts. The first should detail all 
substantive or major changes, including new classes or properties, 
changes to scope notes and adjustments to Quantification. These changes 
should be supported by explanatory notes that detail why the proposed 
changes were necessary and including any alternatives that were 
considered. If the SIG is being asked to select between alternatives, 
then the reasons or arguments that caused the WG to be unable, or 
unwilling, to propose a single solution should be fully rehearsed so the 
SIG as a whole can make an informed decision.  It should be noted that 
this is NOT the preferred state of affairs: the point of the WG is that 
the specialists in the sub-domain provide the optimal, informed 
solution. The second part of the change document should detail all minor 
changes, like correcting typos, adjusting labels or adding and improving 
examples.


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

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework for Issue 628: redo learning diagrams

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear George, all,

This is a lot of work, so thank you. Looking forward to discussing this, 
I am sending a list of things to check as I browse through them:


* Some labels have underscores, others do not - I prefer without given 
that we never use underscores in the main document
* I am not sure we need dashed line for classes, not sure what they 
signify, given that the indirectness is expressed by the dashed property 
line, no?
* Some labels spill out of the class box boundary (font consistency in 
general to be checked)

* Some cardinality labels do not align properly
* I think the legend can be included only once
* It is unclear why polka dot style is used sometimes (e.g. under 
material and technique, the Modification box and Type box - mostly seems 
to be connected to .1 properties)


Do we need to check the validity for each drawing? For example the one 
on Attribute Assignment shows property arrows pointing the wrong direction.


Do we need to keep about old versions of drawings on the website? I.e. 
are they there for reference as well as used as didactic material?


All the best,

Thanasis



On 04/05/2023 14:58, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

An open homework relates to updating the diagrams in the Use and Learn 
section to accord with CRM 7.1.1.


On the road to that goal, we have had a first pass at re-representing 
the extant diagrams in an updated style using draw.io  .


You can find the link to this work here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uZAVZ7x42ImKNZt60qZxmQ6nFQhRFkBW/view?usp=share_link 


n.b.: to see the diagrams you must click the button 'open with 
diagrams.net ' then you must accept many terms, 
then please be aware that there are some 37 tabs full of diagrams, you 
can browse them at the bottom of the draw.io  interface.


We put forward this draft remake of the existing diagrams to get 
feedback from the community on readability / functionality of this new 
representation. The content should be the same as it was, if there is a 
deviation it is likely by error.


We redid the old diagrams as it seemed like the appropriate first step 
before embarking on altering them to reflect the new CIDOC CRM 7.1.1 
realities. As we created these diagrams we noted where the diagram would 
change in the new version.


The proposal here is to solicit feedback on the representation provided 
here and then hopefully to plan the step forward to create the up to 
date diagrams based on this discussion.


Best,

George on behalf of Takin.solutions


___
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] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

I think the meaning of a library flooding is that the books get wet. We 
can model to a microscopic scale if the situation requires, but this is 
not necessary for this example I think. In the case of the wildfire, it 
could be both, i.e. both triggered and also part of it, but we cannot 
assume that the triggering event always completely contains the 
triggered event.


I would also propose a minor rewriting of Martin's paragraph:

"The distinction of a triggering event A from the triggered event B lies 
in their difference of nature. The starting of B is the result of an 
interaction of material constituents of A with material constituents of 
B. However, B does not necessarily continue the kinds of processes of A. 
Therefore the triggering event A must spatiotemporally overlap with the 
initial time and area of the triggered event B. Any subsequent phenomena 
must initiate from this area and time."


Is that an improvement at all? Or am I confusing things?

All the best,

Thanasis

On 22/04/2023 08:38, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:

One more question: Can a wildfire trigger the destruction of a house, or does 
the burning down of the house form a part of the wildfire event? In other 
words, is there a difference of nature or is the destruction a continuation of 
the kinds of processes of the wildfire?



Am 21.04.2023 um 12:59 schrieb Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig 
:

Here's a diff:

* label:
OLD   O13 triggers (is triggered by)
NEW   O13 triggered (was triggered by)
(in the examples it was already called "triggered" rather than "triggers")

* scope note:
Part 1 is unchanged:
This property associates an instance of E5 Event that triggers another instance 
of E5 Event with the latter. It identifies the interaction between events: an 
event can activate (trigger) other events in a target system that is in a 
situation of sustained tension, such as a trap or an unstable mountain slope 
giving way to a land slide after a rain or earthquake.

Part 2:
OLD   In that sense the triggering event is interpreted as a cause. However, 
the association of the two events is based on their temporal proximity, with 
the triggering event ending when the triggered event starts.

NEW   The distinction of the triggering event from the triggered one lies in 
their difference of nature: The starting of the triggered event is the result 
of an interaction of constituents with the triggering one, but not a 
continuation of the kinds of processes of the latter. Therefore the triggering 
event must spatiotemporally overlap with the initial time and area of the 
triggered event, and the spreading out of the subsequent phenomena must 
initiate from this area and time and not from multiple independent areas.

* FOL:
O13(x,y) ⇒ P182(x,y) removed

(Domain, range, quantification, examples are unchanged)


About the changes:

Scope note part 2: If there needs to be an interaction of constituents and thus 
a spatiotemporal overlap, then I am not sure I understand the 1966 flood 
example. There is an overlap between the flood and a book getting wet and an 
overlap between a book being wet as a result and the growing of the mould, but 
is there an obvious interaction between the flood and the mould beginning to 
grow on a book? I am assuming O13 is not meant to be transitive?

What is the initial time and area of "mould growth on books stored in flooded 
library rooms"? Is it obvious that this area is connected and not multiple 
independent areas?

FOL / superproperties: The new scope note suggests P132 "spatiotemporally overlaps with", as well 
as P176 "starts before the start of" (also suggested by Thanasis) and  P173i "ends after or 
with the start of"?

Additional questions:

Scope note part 1: What is the sustained tension in the target system (books 
stored in library rooms) in the 1966 flood example? Or in a house that is 
destroyed by an earthquake or a wildfire?

Examples: Since we want to get rid of fictitious examples, would it make sense 
to replace the earthquake/landslide example? Non-fictitious examples would be 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#2018_fire or 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_Things_Go (an artistic cascade of 
triggering events)

Best,
Wolfgang



Am 20.04.2023 um 14:01 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig :

Dear All,

Here my first go:

OLD

O13 triggers (is triggered by)

Domain:
E5 Event
Range:
E5 Event
Quantification:
many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:
This property associates an instance of E5 Event that triggers another instance 
of E5 Event with the latter. It identifies the interaction between events: an 
event can activate (trigger) other events in a target system that is in a 
situation of sustained tension, such as a trap or an unstable mountain slope 
giving way to a land slide after a rain or earthquake. In that sense the 
triggering event is interpreted as a cause. However, the association of the two 
events is based on their temporal proximity, with the triggering eve

[Crm-sig] New CRMsci e-vote: label for S23

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Many thanks to those of you who voted for the CRMsci examples in the 
last e-vote which will be added to the document.


In the process of discussing these examples with several of you, there 
was a strong view that the current label of S23 Position Measurement is 
confusing. I appreciate that the role of labels is to reminder us of the 
scope note and in general we avoid arguing too much about them. I would 
not normally call for an e-vote on a label, but this is the first time 
that S23 is formalised in a stable CRMsci version so it is worth getting 
it right so that we do not have to change it.


The proposal is to change the label,

from: S23 Position Measurement

to: S23 Position Determination

S23 is not a measurement in the sense of S21. Including the word 
"measurement" in the label will confuse people referring to this class.


Please vote YES if you agree with this change. Please vote NO if you 
disagree giving some rationale.


If we go ahead with this change, it will mean that some editorial 
changes are necessary in other parts of the document for consistency 
which Athina and I are happy to do.


Many thanks for your patience with this version of CRMsci. We are very 
nearly there.


All the best,

Thanasis

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

[Crm-sig] New e-vote for CRMsci: examples for position measurement

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Many thanks to those who voted for the CRMsci examples. Also, many 
thanks to Wolfgang who has flagged several inaccuracies with the Titanic 
examples, done deeper research and has provided further clarity. 
Following his review, Athina and I thought it is appropriate to send 
another e-vote out with the more recently proposed changes. Apologies 
for asking for another reading of the examples from you, but hopefully 
this will be the final piece of work for version 2.0. Any more issues 
beyond the specific examples can be raised against version 2.1 which we 
will prepare as soon as version 2.0 is ready.


Please vote YES if you are happy with the changes below (any minor 
editorial changes should not stop you from voting YES, we can take care 
of them anyway). Vote NO if you think the examples are not appropriate 
and need further work, with some explanation on what that work should 
be. *Please vote by the end of day Friday the 17th of February*.


*S23 Position Measurement*

Added a sentence in the scope note to emphasise that S23 Position 
Measurement is not a sub-class of S21 Measurement:


"This class does not inherit properties from class S21 Measurement."

Revised examples:

    • the measurement of the position of the Titanic for the initial 
distress call after hitting an iceberg (S23) [The iceberg was hit on 14 
April 1912 at 23:40 ship’s time. The subsequent position measurement was 
likely done by Capt. Edward Smith and was transmitted 15 April 1912 at 
00:27.] (Halpern, 2011)
    • the measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph 
G. Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) [done 
between 00:27 and 00:35, when Boxhall showed the coordinates to Smith] 
(Halpern, 2011)
    • the measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert 
Ballard's team after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) (Ballard et 
al., 1987)


*O30 determined position*

Revised examples:

    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic for the initial 
distress call after hitting an iceberg (S23) /determined position/ 
41°44′N 50°24′W (E94). [This was quickly determined via ‘dead 
reckoning’, i.e. based on the distance travelled since the previous 
known location, extrapolating a previous dead reckoning for 14 April 
1912 20:00] (Halpern, 2011, Boxhall, 1962)
    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph 
G. Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) /determined 
position/ 41°46′N 50°14′W (E94). [This was again determined via dead 
reckoning but extrapolating Boxhall's own measurement shortly after 
20:00, and revised the original position.] (Halpern, 2011, Boxhall, 1962)
    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert 
Ballard's team after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) /determined 
position/ 41°43′32′′N 49°56′49′′W (E94). [This was the position of the 
centre of the ‘boiler field’, part of the Titanic debris] (Ballard et 
al., 1987)


*O31 has validity time-span*

Changed scope note opening sentence:

From: "This property associates an instance of S23 Position Measurement 
with the instance of E52 Time-Span for which the measurement is valid."


To: "This property associates an instance of S23 Position Measurement 
with the instance of E52 Time-Span for which the measurement is valid 
according to the observer at the time of the observation. "


Revised examples (note these no longer refer to E52 with date/times and 
apart from the ship-wreck discovery event, they refer to the collision, 
not the measurement):


    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic for the initial 
distress call after hitting an iceberg (S23) /has validity time-span/ 
the time of the collision (E52). [This is a plausible guess based on 
Boxhall’s account; the collision was on 14 April 1912 23:40 ship’s 
time.] (Halpern, 2011, Boxhall, 1962)
    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph 
G. Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) /has 
validity time-span/ the time of the collision (E52). [Boxhall was 
convinced of the correctness of his position measurement until his 
death.] (Halpern 2011, Boxhall, 1962)
    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert 
Ballard's team after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) /has 
validity time-span/ the time of the position measurement (E52). [This 
time period falls within the 1st of September 1985 00:48, i.e. the first 
encounter of a piece of Titanic debris and 1987] (Ballard et al., 1987)


*O32 measured position of*

Revised examples:

    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic for the initial 
distress call after hitting an iceberg (S23) /measured position of/ the 
Titanic (E22). (Halpern, 2011)
    • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph 
G. Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) /measured 
position of/ the Titanic (E22) (Halpern, 2011)
    • The measurement of the position o

[Crm-sig] E-vote for CRMsci 2.0

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Happy New Year! Please consider the following for an e-vote. This are 
the pending examples for CRMsci:


*Example for S15 Observable Entity:*

 *

   the flight of a male Bearded Vulture observed over Heraklion, Crete
   in the morning of the 24^th of October 2020 (E5) (Claes, 2020)

Claes, J. (2020) /Bearded Vulture - Gypaetus barbatus/, 
/Observation.org/. Available at: 
https://observation.org/observation/203043133/ (Accessed: 20 December 2022).


*Example for S19 Encounter Event:*

 *

   the encounter of the marble floor of the Villa of the Papyri in
   Herculaneum during the digging of a well in 1750 (S19) (Koekoe, 2017)

Koekoe, J. (2017) ‘Herculaneum: Villa of the Papyri – World History et 
cetera’, 17 January. Available at: 
https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/villa-papyri/ (Accessed: 20 
December 2022).


 *

   the encounter of oak planks from a ship during a dig in a mound at
   the farm Lille Oseberg in Norway in 1908 (S19) (‘Oseberg Ship’,
   Wikipedia, 2022)

‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) /Wikipedia/. Available at: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship&oldid=1127078631 
 
(Accessed: 20 December 2022).


*Example for O19 encountered object:*

 *

   The encounter of a marble floor during the digging of a well in 1750
   (S19) /encountered object /the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum
   (E18). (Koekoe, 2017)

Koekoe, J. (2017) ‘Herculaneum: Villa of the Papyri – World History et 
cetera’, 17 January. Available at: 
https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/villa-papyri/ (Accessed: 20 
December 2022).


 *

   The encounter of oak planks from a ship during a dig in a mound at
   the farm Lille Oseberg in Norway, in 1908 (S19) /encountered object
   /the Oseberg Ship (E18). (‘Oseberg Ship’, Wikipedia, 2022)

‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) /Wikipedia/. Available at: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship&oldid=1127078631 
 
(Accessed: 20 December 2022).


*Example for O21 encountered at:*

 *

   The encounter of the Oseberg Shipin 1908 (S19) /encountered at /the
   farm Lille Oseberg in Norway (E53). (‘Oseberg Ship’, Wikipedia, 2022)

‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) /Wikipedia/. Available at: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship&oldid=1127078631 
 
(Accessed: 20 December 2022).


*Examples for O31 has validity time-span:*

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by captain Smith
   after hitting an iceberg (S23) /has validity time-span/ from 15
   April 1912 23:40 to 15 April 1912 00:15(E52) [This was the time-span
   between hitting the iceberg and ordering for a distress signal
   (time-span A). Captain Smith measured the position during a
   time-span B within time-span A. [The two time-spans can be related
   with property 'P86 falls within'] (Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph G.
   Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) /has
   validity time-span/ from 15 April 1912 00:15to 15 April 1912
   00:20(E52) [This was valid in a time-span between the 00:15 and
   00:20, i.e. duringthe position re-measuringwith more precision]
   (Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert Ballard
   after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) /has validity
   time-span/ 1 September 1985 12:48 (E52) (‘Wreck of the Titanic’,
   Wikipedia, 2022)

Tikkanen, A. (no date) ‘Timeline of the Titanic’s Final Hours’, 
/Britannica/. Available at: 
https://www.britannica.com/story/timeline-of-the-titanics-final-hours 
(Accessed: 8 November 2022).
‘Wreck of the Titanic’ (2022) /Wikipedia/. Available at: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wreck_of_the_Titanic&oldid=1118302004 
 
(Accessed: 8 November 2022).


***Example for O25 contains:*

 *

   The opal specimen from Jalisco in Mexico (E18) contains the fluid
   inclusion of the specimen (S14). (Rentro, 2019)

Rentro, N. (2019) ‘Mexican Opal with Large Fluid Inclusion’, /Gems & 
Gemology/, 55(2), pp. 260–269.

https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/summer-2019-microworld-mexican-opal-large-fluid-inclusion

Please vote YES if you are happy to include these examples, or vote NO 
and explain which ones are not good enough. For minor issues that you 
picked up please vote YES with a note for the correction.


All the best,

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

Re: [Crm-sig] new ISSUE: O13 "triggers" scope note

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Indeed and the original questions raised were about the phrase in the 
introduction "The association of the two events is based on their 
temporal proximity, i.e. the triggering event ends when the triggered 
event starts." I think the examples mentioned in the scope note indicate 
a temporal relationship of:


P176 starts before the start of

than the agreed:

P182 ends before or with the start of

Even in the case of, say, a spring-loaded mousetrap, it would be 
difficult to tell that the event of stepping on the trip (of the trap) 
is completed before the spring is released.


So we either explain the event splitting approach or opt for the safer 
option of P176.


All the best,

Thanasis

P.S. I think any change would need to go to 2.1.

On 08/12/2022 11:18, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

O13 "triggers" in CRMsci requires the triggering event to be finished by the 
time the triggered event starts. In the example of rainfall causing a landslide in the 
scope note, it would mean that continuing rainfall has to be split up into the part 
before the landslide and after the landslide. This is not obvious and needs to be 
reflected in the scope note.

One example for O13 is the 1966 flood in Florence triggering mould growth on 
books stored in flooded library rooms. I read this to claim that the mould 
growth started only after the flood had receded completely, which I find a 
strong claim. However, Steve argued that the cited source does not contain 
information about the mould starting to grow while the flood was still ongoing.

Other examples we discussed were:
* an asthmatic in a room full of cats, triggering an asthma attack while still 
being in the room
* an earthquake triggering the destruction of houses: It is not realistic to 
split up the earthquake event into parts for each destroyed house.

Best,
Wolfgang


___
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] Issue 624, linguistic Appellation

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Just to remind you that there is some documentation for 
E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation in the RDFS implementation guidelines 
document:


https://cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/issue%20443%20-%20Implementing%20CIDOC%20CRM%20in%20RDF%20v1.1.pdf

in the section "Language of an Appellation". Perhaps extending that 
section would be useful with any details that George and Rob think are 
missing. I have just noticed as well that the property 'P72 has 
language' is mentioned in a confusing way in that section as it does not 
apply directly to E41 and there is also no mention of multiple 
instantiation.


Following Francesco's message, isn't LRM Nomen a good choice to address 
links to language?


Thanasis

On 16/12/2022 14:11, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:


While this is interesting, the issue is not to re-engineer names and 
languages from first principles. There is an existing class, 
E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation, which is in use in many projects and 
products around the world. The issue, as raised by George, is that it is 
thought that it would be better for this class to have documentation 
outside of the RDFS document that defines it technically.


There are two possible outcomes of this issue:
1. It is agreed that there should be human-intended documentation for 
the class, and then that documentation gets written for 
E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation.
2. It is not agreed that there should be human-intended documentation 
for the class, and documentation gets written outside of CIDOC-CRM.


Rob


On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 5:05 AM Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:


Dear Martin, Rob,

If we consider the intended phenomenon in reality, we can observe
(through everyday experience or documentation) that humans use names
for identifying things. Insofar as humans live in cultural contexts,
and these are realized through languages, these names are in some
way related to, or valid in different languages.

If we stick to the ontological substance of E41 Appellation, we can
observe that people can use the "The Big Apple" appellation to
identify New York City even in sentences expressed in other
languages than English, and possibly without even understanding the
meaning of this expression.

This phenomenon, which occurs on Earth in billions of instances at
every moment, can be expressed, or has been expressed in the context
of CIDOC CRM in three ways:

  * in using frbroo:F52 Name Use Activity
 which, as a subclass
of crm:E7 Activity ,
captures the information about the dynamic of human groups in
space and time and thus in a linguistic context. One could
interpret sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language
 in this sense and add
a property situating the activity in a linguistic context
  * in using LRM Nomen as Martin proposes. The concerned
propositional object captures the /intentional conten/t (as
social philosophers would say) of the belief that this
appellation is validly usable, i. e. understandable in this
language in order to identify a thing
  * in using sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language
 as it was originally
modelled in a social perspective, i.e. as a subclass of
Intentional State or State of Mind, situating in a temporal
region (as temporal phenomenon) the fact that a thing is
considered as being validly named with this appellation in a
linguistic and social context. This is the perspective of CRMsoc
with a domain that complements CRMbase from the 'inside'
perspective (in the sense of intention carryied in the
_individual_ minds) and (indirectly) through observable
phenomena and documentation. Therefore not a State as
alternative to Event (in the same CRMbase domain) but something
else, a sort of quality of the minds of the believers —a state
of mind— of the LRM Nomen instance.


This said, one can consider the property crm:P1 is identified by
(identifies)  as a
shortcut and abstraction of this phenomenon, regardless of the ways
of expressing it summarized above, relating the /intended entity/
with an /appellation/ of it.

In the same perspective of abstraction and simplification, and in my
opinion as a robust way, without adding subclasses of Persistent
Item which risks to be cumbersome and their substance not well
defined and rigid/disjoint, I'd be in favor, as already expressed,
of adding an additional property:

E41 Appellation --> P... is used in --> E56 Language

as a shortcut of another aspect of sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 623, FOL for O15

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Thank you both. I am assuming that Wolfgang's formulation is a shorter 
equivalent to Christian-Emil's. I will add it to the draft.


Thanasis

On 08/12/2022 15:31, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:

I would write it like this:

O15(x,y) ⇒ S10(x)
O15(x,y) ⇒ E53(y)
O15(x,y) ∧ E18(x) ⇔ P156(x,y)

Wolfgang



Am 08.12.2022 um 15:33 schrieb Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig 
:


ISSUE 623, FOL for O15

I was asked to produce FOL for  the sentence 'This property is equivalent to 
P156 occupies (is occupied by) with domain E18 Physical Thing and range E53 
Place.'  (marked in green). The equivalence is that O15 implies P156 when 
restricted to E18. The other way round is that P156 implies O15. P156 is a de 
facto sub property if O15 when seen from CRMsci

Christian-Emil


O15
  occupied (was occupied by)


Domain:
S10

  Material Substantial

Range:
E53

  Place

Equivalent to:
E18

  Physical Thing.
P156

  occupies (is occupied by):
E53

  Place

Scope note:
This property associates an instance of S10 Material
  Substantial with the instance of E53 Place that this substance occupied. It 
describes the space filled (occupied) by a physical matter. This property is 
the development of the shortcut expressed in the proposition of classification: 
“S20 Physical Feature”
  isA “E53 Place”.
This property is equivalent to P156 occupies (is occupied by) with domain E18 
Physical Thing and range E53 Place.

Examples: [...]
In First Order Logic:
O15(x,y)

⇒

  S10(x)

O15(x,y)

⇒

  E53(y)

E18(x)

∧ O15(x,y)
⇒ P156(x,y)
P156(x,y)

⇒
  O15(x)






___
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

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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 609 Homework

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Thank you for this analysis Martin. I would argue that this is for issue 
610 - I have included it in the working document for that issue to discuss.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 22/11/2022 17:43, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

"In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, upon discussing 
the presentation 
by Thanasis Velios on Typed and Negative Typed Properties, the SIG resolved to start a new issue, where to discuss expressing the idea that an object has been completely observed and has been dound to lack a certain feature. This fact forces a closed-world assumption on the object of documentation.


Rome, September 2022"

I have promised to present some ideas we had discussed in the past in 
the context of biodiversity, about observation proving that some species 
is extinct, or in archaeology, about the absence of some phenomenon.


Typical examples are the *unnoticed survival* of the sea otter  in the 
Monterey area of California in a small bay,


and the so far *unique find* of gears from whole antiquity in the 
Antikythera Mechanism - people would not have put such things in graves.


Another example is the lack of fish bones in Minoan culture - they are 
simply not preserved in the Cretan climate.


The Negative Typed Property states that the domain has no relation to 
*any instance* of the referred *type*.


We can argue, that a reasonable assessment of non-existence should imply:

*A)* the respective potential instances must have a reasonable 
likelihood to be *preserved *to the time of observation at least in traces.


*B)* the applied method of observation must be suitable to *detect* 
them, in particular traces.


C) the domain instance, the one lacking the relation, must be observed 
with sufficient *density and coverage*.


C1) In case of species, there are arguments about minimal populations 
and the areas they would roam about, so that the observation density 
needs not be complete coverage. Similar arguments may apply to 
archaeological object types.


The issue second to be discussed is the time of validity.

A) Eternal:

     A1) The domain object under investigation has never had such a 
relation since its begin of existence. This is a question of temporal 
coverage, or of proof that traces would still exist, or that that the 
object had not the possibility until the end of observation. These 
senses produce a sort of being "current", up to the time of last 
observation.


     A2) The domain object under investigation has never had such a 
relation since its begin of existence and will not have until its end, 
such as putting wheels on a piece of cloth, or putting leaf markers in 
ancient books in a museum, or in investigating remains of past objects 
or a past activity/ extinct culture, or the *instances of the related 
type* do no more exist.


B) From some time on: The domain object under investigation has lost 
such a relation. This is characteristic for extinction. The species 
cannot be recreated. Similarly for any type with instances that do no 
more exits after the referred time of loss and end of observation.


C) For the period of observation only.

For the time being, we can state that the meaning is always at least C), 
and there may be arguments for more.


If a negative property held before some time, we have to think more 
about it.


Probably, a good practice will be to associate an observation with the 
negative property.



So far my ideas.


Best,


Martin


--

  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

[Crm-sig] Issue 611 HW: scope notes for the properties of position measurement

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

In issue 388 
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-388-reference-to-the-measurements-of-position-of-things) 
we agreed the properties for position measurement. This issue 611 
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-611-scope-notes-for-the-properties-of-position-measurement) 
is about creating their scope notes and examples. Athina, Gerald, Martin 
and I have drafted these as shown below. Please consider them and we can 
discuss at the next SIG meeting. The examples for S23 at the bottom are 
included to correspond with the ones for the properties.


All the best,

Thanasis


O30determined position (was determined by)

Domain:

S23 Position Measurement

Range:

E94 Space Primitive

Subproperty of:

S4 Observation: O16 observed value (value was observed by): E1 CRM Entity

Quantification:

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

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of S23 Position Measurement with 
the instance of E94 Space Primitive which is the result of 
thatmeasurement. The instance of E94 Space Primitive approximates the 
place occupied by the entity whose position is being measured.


Examples:

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by captain Smith
   after hitting an iceberg (S23) O30 determined position41°44′N
   50°24′W (E94) [This was quickly measured based on the distance
   travelled since the previous known location] (Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph G.
   Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) O30
   determined position41°46′N 50°14′W (E94) [This was measured with
   more precision and revised the original position] (Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert Ballard
   after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) O30 determined
   position41°43′32″N 49°56′49″W (E94) (‘Wreck of the Titanic’,
   Wikipedia, 2022)

In First Order Logic:

Oxx1(x,y) ⇒ S23(x)

Oxx1(x,y) ⇒ E94(y)

O31has validity time-span(is time-span validity for)

Domain:

S23 Position Measurement

Range:

E52Time-Span

Subproperty of:

E2 Temporal Entity: P4 has time-span (is time-span of): E52 Time-Span

Quantification:

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

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of S23 Position Measurement with 
the instance of E53 Time-Span for which the measurement is valid. No 
inferences can be made in relation to the validity of the measurement 
outside this time-span despite the fact that some measured entities are 
relatively stable and their positions may remain the same after the 
measurement. The time-span of validity should fall within (P86 falls 
within (contains)) the overall time-span (P4 has time-span (is time-span 
of) of the process of measurement.


Examples:

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by captain Smith
   after hitting an iceberg (S23) O31 has validity time-spanfrom 15
   April 1912 00:15 to 15 April 1912 00:20 (E52) [This was only valid
   while the position was being re-measured] (Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph G.
   Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) O31 has
   validity time-spanfrom 15 April 1912 00:20 to 15 April 1912 02:17
   (E52) [This was valid after the position was re-measured with more
   precision and was the measured position of the ship until the final
   distress signal was sent] (Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert Ballard
   after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) O31 has validity
   time-span1 September 1985 12:48 (E52) (‘Wreck of the Titanic’,
   Wikipedia, 2022)

In First Order Logic:

Oxx2(x,y) ⇒ S23(x)

Oxx2(x,y) ⇒ E52(y)

Oxx2(x,y) ⇒ P4(x,z) ) ∧ P86(y,z)

O32measuredposition of (was locatedby)

Domain:

S23 Position Measurement

Range:

S15 Observable Entity

Subproperty of:

S4Observation: O8observed (was observed by): S15Observable Entity

Quantification:

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

Scope note:

This property connects an instance of S23 Position Measurement with the 
instance of S15 Observable Entity whose position is being measured.


Examples:

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by captain Smith
   after hitting an iceberg (S23) O32 measured position ofthe Titanic
   (E22) (Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by officer Joseph G.
   Boxhall after the initial distress signal was sent (S23) O32
   measured position ofthe Titanic (E22) (Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

   The measurement of the position of the Titanic by Robert Ballard
   after the Titanic ship-wreck was found (S23) O32 measured position
   ofthe Titanic (E22) (‘Wreck of the Titanic’, Wikipedia, 2022)

In First Order Logic:

Oxx3(x,y) ⇒ S23(x)

Oxx3(x,y) ⇒ S15(y)


For completion examples for S23 Position Measurement:

S23 Position Measurement

 *

   the measurement of the position of the Titanic by captain Smith
   after hitting an iceberg (S23) (Tikkanen, 2022)

 *

[Crm-sig] Issue 612 HW - additional figures for position measurement (CRMsci introduction)

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Athina, Gerald, Martin and I have put together the homework for issue 
612. Proposing the following text to be added between the Observation 
section and the Inference making section at the CRMsci introduction:


Measuring positions
A specialisation of the class S4 Observation is the class S32 Position 
Measurement. It allows modelling the process of measuring the position 
of entities based on the fact that they can be observed at a location at 
a given time-span. The properties connecting the observable entity with 
time and location are shown in Figure 9.


Figure 10 shows an example of measuring the position of the Titanic 
after it hit an iceberg. Before issuing a distress signal, Titanic’s 
captain Smith measured the position of the ship based on the distance 
travelled from the last known position, but this measurement was 
inaccurate. The Titanic is an instance of S15 Observable Entity and more 
specifically an instance of E18 Physical Thing and its spatio-temporal 
extent during measuring is an instance of E93 Presence. The spatial 
projection of this instance of E93 Presence is the actual place where 
the Titanic was after hitting the iceberg. Captain Smith’s measurement 
was inaccurate and the resulting latitude and longitude coordinates 
measured (instance of E94 Space Primitive) defined the assumed place of 
the ship and not the actual place. The assumed place is a separate 
instance of E53 Place which can only approximate the actual place. The 
two are connected with the property ‘P189 approximates’ which allows 
reasoning on different views of the location of things by comparing 
instances of E53 Place with their corresponding provenance.


Figures

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dGVdeFnJyMgSUByo10qMaV9oK8Ptpt55/view?usp=share_link

Figure 9: Classes and properties for describing measuring the positions 
of things.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJrhPIrwgYB4Iu0IV8JO2ar8J5l38LQR/view?usp=share_link

Figure 10: Example of position measurement of the Titanic after it hit 
an iceberg.


To discuss at the next meeting.

All the best,

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

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

The section on Minimality outlines when new classes are declared and it 
includes:


"It serves as a merging point of two CIDOC CRM class branches via 
multiple IsA (e.g., E25 Human-Made Feature). When the branch 
superclasses are used for multiple instantiation of an item, this item 
is in the intersection of the scopes. The class resulting from multiple 
IsA should be narrower in scope than the intersection of the scopes of 
the branch superclasses."


If I interpret this correctly, we need to ask:

Is "E33 E41 Linguistic Appellation" narrower in scope that the result of 
multiple instantiation of "E33 Linguistic Object" and "E41 Appellation"?


And if I understand George's message correctly, it looks like it is not 
narrower, no?


All the best,

Thanasis




On 08/11/2022 15:00, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:


I agree with George that this should be added.

There are plenty of cases of classes without additional properties that 
serve only to join two parent classes. For example 
E22_Human-Made_Object, E25_Human-Made_Feature, and E34_Inscription. 
There are also remaining leaf nodes with no properties with only one 
parent class, such as E27_Site. Further, there are classes that have a 
property, but which is semantically indistinguishable from its super 
property. If the requirement is a property, then I propose


Pxx_is_named_by (names)
Domain: E1
Range: Exx_Name (previously E33_E41)
Sub Property Of: P1_is_identified_by
Super Property Of:  P102 has title

This property describes the naming of any entity by a name in a human 
language.


And the
Exx_Name
Super Class: E33, E41
Super Class Of: E35 Title


The discussion last time devolved to "Well we use those so we don't want 
to get rid of them so we're not going to even though they don't have 
properties". But here's the thing ... *everything* has a Name (by which 
I mean an E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation). And it's easy to demonstrate 
that E33_E41 is very well used.


So ... I don't find the argument that we can't do this "because rules" 
very convincing when those rules are applied so inconsistently.


Rob



On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:18 AM Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:


Dear George,

To my understanding (without having been involved in the
relevant discussions about having the E33_E41 class in the RDFS but
not in CRM),
and according to the discussion in issue 363

,
classes that use to co-occur on things simultaneously without being
associated with properties only applicable to the combination of
such classes, are not modelled individually as subclasses of
multiple parent classes (a principle used for keeping the ontology
compact).

The 'E35 Title' class exists because there is a property 'P102 has
title' (of E71 Human-Made Thing) that needs to point to something
that is both a linguistic object and an appellation.
So, for having a CRM class "E? Linguistic Appellation", there should
be a property that needs to point to something that is both a
linguistic object and an appellation (and with the intended
meaning), e.g. a 'has linguistic appellation' property for E39 Actor
or E77 Persistent Item. To my understanding, since there is no such
property, there is (currently) no need to introduce such a class in
CRM.

Best,
Pavlos



On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 12:50 PM George Bruseker via Crm-sig
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:

It's not really though. In the majority of cases when you talk
about a name you need to talk about a language too. Especially
if CRM wants to be inclusive etc. We have a subclass 'title' of
appellation that does allow but it only works for
inanimate objects. So it is useless as a general case. The use
of E33_E41 should be a default in most modelling cases with E41
being the exception (mostly names are in a language). The
general idea of a name in a language is not an arcane concept,
but the majority concept. Needing to use an arcane construct
either E33_E41 or multi instantiation for the majority case when
the standard could just provide the appropriate class and
document it and allow people to build around it, would be a
superior way to go imho.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 12:04 PM stead...@outlook.com
 mailto:stead...@outlook.com>> wrote:

Surely the RDFS E33_E41 is just a workaround for a common
multiple instantiation that is problematic in RDFS land not
a need for a new class.

__ __

*From:*Crm-sig mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> *On Behalf Of *George
Bruseker via Crm-sig
*Sent:* 07 November 2022 15:58
*To:* Elias Tzortzakakis mailto:tzort...@ics.forth.gr>>
   

Re: [Crm-sig] Comparing measurements / dimensions Issue 407

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

c) I have problems with using O28 generally for E55 Type.

Please think of:

Exx Sortable Type

Tentative Scope Note: "This class comprises concepts, instances of E55 
Type, that allow for comparing summarily all particulars they classify 
to those classified by some other instances of Exx Sortable Type by some 
form of partial or complete order relation, such as "hills" versus 
"mountains".


I agree that a subclass of E55 is a safer option. We could do a new 
issue to introduce this in CRMsci for version 2.0. I do not think it is 
a controversial proposal in any way.


I think an arbitrary order criterion will be ambiguous. Only a question 
of phantasy to find them. For instance, compare bird species by medium 
size, medium flight speed, medium food consumption, intensity of 
crying.


The color  IHS space has 3 dimensions.

Where is the order criterion defined???


So, a proposed example is:

In the condition survey of the manuscripts of the library of the Saint 
Catherine Monastery, the option ‘supple’ (E55) is conceptually greater 
than the option ‘stiff’ (E55). [These options are used for assessing 
parchment on page 2, section 2 of the survey form] 
https://www.ligatus.org.uk/sites/default/files/form20050110.pdf


There is no reason why "supple" should be before or after "stiff". Is 
this what you are questioning, Martin? If in one dataset they are 
ordered one way and in another they are ordered a different way, any 
cross dataset query would require checking that the orders are in the 
same direction, which is not ideal. Ideally the thesauri where these 
types come from should also specify their order.


All the best,

Thanasis



Best,

Martin

On 10/28/2022 7:59 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:

Is this relevant:

https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-407-ordinal-property-for-e55-type

It is a draft property in CRMsci:

"O28 is conceptually greater than (is conceptually less than)"

All the best,

Thanasis

On 06/10/2022 14:24, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:
To add: Thinking of it again, the Measurement and Dimension classes 
cannot be used for cases as the example I provided in my previous 
email (since 'E54 Dimension' comprises quantifiable properties that 
can be measured by some calibrated means and can be approximated by 
values).
Nevertheless, there are cases where the intensity of the earthquake 
is given as a number in the original source, e.g. "8", "7-9" or 
"probably 8".


Best,
Pavlos


On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:29 PM Pavlos Fafalios <mailto:fafal...@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:


    Dear all,

    First, apologies if my question has already been discussed in a
    previous SIG meeting/issue.

    I was wondering if CIDOC CRM currently allows representing a
    measurement (instance of E16 Measurement), not by providing a value
    and unit (through an instance of E54 Dimension), but by comparing it
    with an instance of another dimension/measurement.
    Use case: modeling information about historical earthquakes.
    There are (historical) documents that provide information about
    old/ancient earthquakes and this information is expressed at various
    levels of detail and precision. For example, there is the below 
case:
    - Earthquake instance 1: November 26, 1861 (00:40-02:40). Very 
strong.

    - Earthquake instance 2: November 27, 1861 (04:00-07:00). _Stronger
    than that of Nov 6_ (i.e. stronger than earthquake instance 1)
    If we ask for "very strong" earthquakes, the ideal system should
    also return instance 2.

    So, the question is how we can model the information 'stronger than'
    between two instances of  E54 Dimension (or E60 Number?), since this
    is how it appears in the original source.

    Is there a straightforward way that I do not see?

    Could this be done through E13 Attribute Assignment (if yes, how?)

    Thank you!

    Best regards,
    Pavlos


    --     Pavlos Fafalios

    Postdoctoral researcher (Marie Curie IF - Project ReKnow
    <https://reknow.ics.forth.gr/>)
    Centre for Cultural Informatics & Information Systems Laboratory
    Institute of Computer Science - FORTH

    Visiting Lecturer
    Department of Management Science & Technology
    Hellenic Mediterranean University

    Web: http://users.ics.forth.gr/~fafalios/
    <http://users.ics.forth.gr/~fafalios/>
    Email: fafal...@ics.forth.gr <mailto:fafal...@ics.forth.gr>
    Address: N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, 70013 Heraklion, Greece
    Tel: +30-2810-391619



--
Pavlos Fafalios

Postdoctoral researcher (Marie Curie IF - Project ReKnow 
<https://reknow.ics.forth.gr/>)

Centre for Cultural Informatics & Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science - FORTH

Visiting Lecturer
Department of Management Science & Technology
Hellenic Mediterranean University

Web: http://users.ics

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Delete Unnecessary / Incorrect Classes of CRMdig

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

YES

On 01/11/2022 09:53, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

I propose the deletion of the following classes of CRMdig. The reason 
that each should be deleted is listed beside it, but there are two 
basic, principled reasons for the proposal:


1) the class can be modelled using a more generic pattern from CRMbase 
or CRMdig without loss of semantic valence
2) the class violates a CIDOC CRM modelling principle / best practice, 
an alternative mode of expressing it already exists using standard 
modelling in CRM and SHOULD be employed


Therefore, if our proposal is done correctly removing all these classes 
will serve to a) make the model lighter but just as semantically 
powerful, b) accord with CRM SIG general modelling principles and c) 
serve better as a middle level domain ontology for its area of scope.


Martin Doerr, Rob Sanderson and Nicola Carboni have all contributed over 
time to this review or properties alongside myself as proposer. Any 
mistakes being mine.


With that as background here are the proposed deletions:

*D21 Person Name*: Obvious reasons. We already have a general E41 
Appellation class and we do not specialize name classes endlessly but 
use the p2 has type formulation.


*D23 Room*: Convenience class that is in fact not that convenient: use 
E53 Place


This is a first list to which others may be added. At this time, I am 
happy to propose the above list for deletion as hopefully relatively 
uncontroversial.


You can find the specification for CRMdig here:
https://cidoc-crm.org/crmdig/sites/default/files/CRMdig_v3.2.1.pdf 



To read more on these classes.

There are other problematic classes which need to be reanalyzed before 
they are considered for deletion or reworking. Separate issues will be 
raised for each of these as necessary.


I call a vote now, ending on Nov 11. Please vote by answering YES to 
this emaill thread if you agree to these deletions or NO. If you vote 
NO, please indicate if you vote NO to all or if you vote NO to some part 
of the proposal.


Thanks in advance for your interest and participation.

Best,

George
Vice Chair CRM SIG

--
George Bruseker, PhD
Chief Executive Officer
Takin.solutions Ltd.
https://www.takin.solutions/ 

___
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] ISSUE: Delete Unnecessary / Incorrect Properties of CRMdig

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

YES

On 01/11/2022 09:48, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

I propose the deletion of the following properties of CRMdig. The reason 
that each should be deleted is listed beside it, but there are two 
basic, principled reasons for the proposal:


1) the property can be modelled using a more generic pattern from 
CRMbase or CRMdig without loss of semantic valence
2) the property violates a CIDOC CRM modelling principle / best 
practice, an alternative mode of expressing it already exists using 
standard modelling in CRM and SHOULD be employed


Therefore, if our proposal is done correctly removing all these 
properties will serve to a) make the model lighter but just as 
semantically powerful, b) accord with CRM SIG general modelling 
principles and c) serve better as a middle level domain ontology for its 
area of scope.


Martin Doerr, Rob Sanderson and Nicola Carboni have all contributed over 
time to this review or properties alongside myself as proposer. Any 
mistakes being mine.


With that as background here are the proposed deletions:

*Delete:* L4 has preferred label: inconsistent with the rest of CRM, 
redundant to other ontologies


*Keep until D11/D9 revision is understood*: L20 has created: because D9 
is removed (but see also D11)


*Keep, not marginal: *L24 created logfile: creates a file of type 
‘logfile’ (used to separate derivative output from automated provenance 
reporting.)


*Delete:* L29 has responsible organization: unnecessary sub property 
just use p14

*Delete:* L30 has operator: unnecessary sub property just use p14

*Delete: *L31 has starting date-time: inconsistent modelling, use time 
span like everyone else
*Delete: *L32: has ending date time: inconsistent modelling, use time 
span like everyone else


*Delete:* L33: has maker: this property violates event modelling. If it 
continues to exist then E73 should have ‘has author’ (local project 
requirements...)


*Delete:* L34 has contractor: unnecessary sub property of an unnecessary 
subproperty, use p14


*Delete: *L35 has commissioner: unnecessary sub property, use p14

*Delete: *L47 has comment: not ontological at all

*Delete: *L51 has first name: inconsistent non ontological modelling, 
anathema!

*Delete: *L52 has last name: see above
*Delete: *L53 is not uniquely identified by: this is not a way to encode 
a negation and does not say anything (see also neg properties question)
*Delete: *L55 has inventory number: this is not ontological, please use 
standard modelling

*Delete: *L56 has pixel width: no standard modelling, use dimension
*Delete: *L57 has pixel height: non standard modelling, use dimension
*Delete: *L59 has serial number: non standard modelling, use E42

*Delete: *L61 was on going at: again non standard time modelling for 
convenience sake


This is a first list to which others may be added. At this time, I am 
happy to propose the above list for deletion as hopefully relatively 
uncontroversial.


You can find the specification for CRMdig here:
https://cidoc-crm.org/crmdig/sites/default/files/CRMdig_v3.2.1.pdf 



To read more on these properties.

I call a vote now, ending on Nov 11. Please vote by answering YES to 
this emaill thread if you agree to these deletions or NO. If you vote 
NO, please indicate if you vote NO to all or if you vote NO to some part 
of the proposal.


Thanks in advance for your interest and participation.

Best,

George
Vice Chair CRM SIG


--
George Bruseker, PhD
Chief Executive Officer
Takin.solutions Ltd.
https://www.takin.solutions/ 

___
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

[Crm-sig] CRMsci property labels in past and present tense

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Athina and I are making some progress with version 2.0 of CRMsci and we 
have identified some inconsistencies with property labels in the past 
and present tenses. Typically, the labels are in the present tense and 
the examples using the properties are in the past tense.


These are:

O7 contains or contained
O13 triggers or triggered

Is anyone aware of any relevant guidelines? From our understanding from 
CRMbase it seems that it should be O13 triggered and O7 confines. Please 
share any comments.


I think this also relates to the issue of temporal validity of properties.

All the best,

Thanasis

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

Re: [Crm-sig] Comparing measurements / dimensions

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Is this relevant:

https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-407-ordinal-property-for-e55-type

It is a draft property in CRMsci:

"O28 is conceptually greater than (is conceptually less than)"

All the best,

Thanasis

On 06/10/2022 14:24, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:
To add: Thinking of it again, the Measurement and Dimension classes 
cannot be used for cases as the example I provided in my previous email 
(since 'E54 Dimension' comprises quantifiable properties that can be 
measured by some calibrated means and can be approximated by values).
Nevertheless, there are cases where the intensity of the earthquake is 
given as a number in the original source, e.g. "8", "7-9" or "probably 8".


Best,
Pavlos


On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:29 PM Pavlos Fafalios > wrote:


Dear all,

First, apologies if my question has already been discussed in a
previous SIG meeting/issue.

I was wondering if CIDOC CRM currently allows representing a
measurement (instance of E16 Measurement), not by providing a value
and unit (through an instance of E54 Dimension), but by comparing it
with an instance of another dimension/measurement.
Use case: modeling information about historical earthquakes.
There are (historical) documents that provide information about
old/ancient earthquakes and this information is expressed at various
levels of detail and precision. For example, there is the below case:
- Earthquake instance 1: November 26, 1861 (00:40-02:40). Very strong.
- Earthquake instance 2: November 27, 1861 (04:00-07:00). _Stronger
than that of Nov 6_ (i.e. stronger than earthquake instance 1)
If we ask for "very strong" earthquakes, the ideal system should
also return instance 2.

So, the question is how we can model the information 'stronger than'
between two instances of  E54 Dimension (or E60 Number?), since this
is how it appears in the original source.

Is there a straightforward way that I do not see?

Could this be done through E13 Attribute Assignment (if yes, how?)

Thank you!

Best regards,
Pavlos


-- 
Pavlos Fafalios


Postdoctoral researcher (Marie Curie IF - Project ReKnow
)
Centre for Cultural Informatics & Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science - FORTH

Visiting Lecturer
Department of Management Science & Technology
Hellenic Mediterranean University

Web: http://users.ics.forth.gr/~fafalios/

Email: fafal...@ics.forth.gr 
Address: N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, 70013 Heraklion, Greece
Tel: +30-2810-391619



--
Pavlos Fafalios

Postdoctoral researcher (Marie Curie IF - Project ReKnow 
)

Centre for Cultural Informatics & Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science - FORTH

Visiting Lecturer
Department of Management Science & Technology
Hellenic Mediterranean University

Web: http://users.ics.forth.gr/~fafalios/ 


Email: fafal...@ics.forth.gr 
Address: N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, 70013 Heraklion, Greece
Tel: +30-2810-391619


___
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

[Crm-sig] Issue 520: Sets

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Just for easy future reference the white paper that Martin mentioned is 
here:


https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17171936.pdf

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

Re: [Crm-sig] .1 properties on sub properties of properties with .1

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

I think this sounds right and consistent with the CRM introduction:

"the subproperty inherits the definition of all of the properties 
declared for its superproperty without exceptions (strict inheritance), 
in addition to having none, one or more properties of its own."


Thanasis

On 12/08/2022 10:39, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Hi all,

This is for the .1 fans out there. I think it's an old discussion, but 
one perhaps not unworth repeating. There are places where .1 is 
introduced like 'P14 carried out by' which allow you to qualify the 
relation's mode or aspect. Participated as lawyer, as doctor etc.


Now P14 has subproperties. These specialize the top level property. So 
we have a property like:


https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P23-transferred-title-from/version-7.1.1 



However, P23 doesn't have .1. And yet, people record information that 
modifies such properties in precisely the same way as above.


So right now we can say:

E.g.:
Gifting of Statue of Liberty (E8) P23 transferred title from French 
State (E74)
Gifting of Statue of Liberty (E8) P22 transferred title to American 
State (E74)
Gifting of Statue of Liberty (E8) P24 transffered title of Statue of 
Liberty (E22)


But people also record:

Gifting of Statue of Liberty (E8) P23 transferred title from French 
State (E74) [Gifter]
Gifting of Statue of Liberty (E8) P22 transferred title to American 
State (E74) [Giftee]
Gifting of Statue of Liberty (E8) P24 transferred title of Statue of 
Liberty (E22)


This is not inconsequential information but rather important as you 
might document different ways in which people interact in the exchange 
of ownership of things.


This forces one to retreat to P14 but then one isn't using the standard 
property for transfer of ownership etc.


Therefore, I propose that it be discussed that such properties receive 
the downsteam .1 from their superproperties for logical consistency and 
for accurate repesentation.


Thoughts?

George


___
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

[Crm-sig] Issue 602 HW

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Issue 602 
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-602-determine-the-interface-btw-crmsci-and-crminf) 
is to consider whether class S5/I5 Inference Making should be in CRMsci 
or CRMinf. Following some discussion in the HW group for this issue, the 
proposal is that:


* I5/S5 Inference Making stays in CRMinf.
* its subclasses can be in CRMsci (or other extensions).
* S8 Categorical Hypothesis Building stays in CRMinf.

Rationale:

The scope of CRMinf is to define that there is a process of inference 
making. The types of inference making depend on the methods and logics 
used in various domains, so the subclasses of I5 Inference Making are 
more appropriate in extensions dealing with these domains. Therefore S6 
Data Evaluation and S7 Prediction make sense to be in CRMsci as these 
are often employed in the research areas within the scope of CRMsci. S8 
Categorical Hypothesis Building makes sense in CRMinf as the transition 
from finite sets of observations (CRMsci, etc.) to induction of global 
regularities is a basic inference mechanism in human thinking. The 
theoretical analysis of inference mechanisms started in CRMinf was 
limited to inferring particular facts only. But this does not mean that 
CRMinf is restricted to that. Categorical Hypotheses are also 
constituents of the inference logic applied in inferences about a 
particular reality.


Happy to hear other views and I can prepare a WD for Rome.

All the best,

Thanasis

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

[Crm-sig] Issue 600 HW

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

As part of the homework for issue 600 
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-600-classproperty-labels-are-not-definitions) 
on the role of labels of classes and properties, Erin and I drafted the 
following text to be added at the end of the "Naming Conventions" section.


"The nominal groups used to identify classes and properties are also 
referred to as ‘labels’. While the goal of a label may be to indicate 
the meaning of the class or property in a few words, it would be 
impossible to distil the nuance of the represented concept into a 
sentence fragment; relying solely on the label to infer the meaning of 
the class or property introduces significant potential for 
misunderstanding. Therefore, these labels should instead function as 
reminders of the corresponding scope notes. As the labels cannot 
encapsulate the intension of classes and properties, no assumption about 
the meaning of a class or property should be made from its label alone."


Happy to hear your comments and prepare a WD for Rome.

All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] Issue 481 HW

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

This is for CRMact. Martin and I have reformulated the scope notes of 
actP21 and actP22 to include contained places and time spans as the HW 
dictated.


*Old scope note for actP21*

This property associates an instance of actE4 Event Template with the 
instance of E53 Place which is specified by the template as the place of 
the specified event.


*Proposed scope note for actP21*

This property associates an instance of actE4 Event Template with the 
instance of E53 Place which is specified by the template as the place of 
the specified event. An event will match the specified place when it 
happens at an instance of E53 Place which is contained within or is 
identical to the specified instance of E53 Place. This can automatically 
be verified if the two instances of E53 Place have been connected with 
the property P89 falls within (contains).


*Old scope note for actP22*

This property associates an instance of actE4 Event Template with the 
instance of E52 Time-span which is specified by the template as being 
the time-span for the specified event.


*Proposed scope note for actP22*

This property associates an instance of actE4 Event Template with the 
instance of E52 Time-span which is specified by the template as being 
the time-span for the specified event. An event will match the specified 
time-span even when it happens during an instance of E52 Time-span 
contained within the specified instance of E52 Time-span. This can 
automatically be verified if the two instances of E52 Time-span have 
been connected with the property P86 falls within (contains).


Happy to hear your thoughts.

All the best,

Thanasis

P.S. In the current version of CRMact, the range of actP21 is my mistake 
noted as E55 Type. It is of course E53 Place.
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework, Issue556

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Following this, I am also making a few recommendations on possible 
vocabularies based on my previous HW:


* E4: type of period → do not make recommendation

* E10: type of transfer of custody
* legal responsibility → possible AAT term 
[ownership](http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300055603)
* physical possession → possible AAT term [possession (property 
right)](http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300411616)


* E15: type of identifier assignment
* "preferred identifier assignment" → CRM thesaurus

* E34: type of alphabet
* List of script names → 
[ISO15924](https://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html)


* E57: type of material → do not make recommendation

* E58: type of unit
* List of units → [ISO8](https://www.iso.org/standard/30669.html)

* P3.1: type of encoding, type of note → do not make recommendation

* P14.1: type of role → do not make recommendation

* P16.1: type of mode of use → do not make recommendation

* P136.1: type of taxonomic role → do not make recommendation

* P19.1: type of use → do not make recommendation

* P62.1: mode of depiction → unclear what this is, no example

* P67.1: type of reference → do not make recommendation

* P138.1: mode of representation → do not make recommendation

* P69.1: type of association → do not make recommendation

* P102.1: type of title
* child terms of AAT 
[titles](http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300417193)


* P107.1: type of member → do not make recommendation

* P130.1: type of similarity → do not make recommendation

* P137.1: type of taxonomic role → do not make recommendation (well 
established in biology but not other disciplines)


* P139.1: type of alternative form → do not make recommendation

* P144.1: type of membership → do not make recommendation

* P189.1: type of approximation → unclear what this is, no example

In relation to deprecated classes, the only one I disagree with Martin is:

E40 Legal Body. AAT corporations 
(http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300025969) is too focused on business.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 10/07/2022 09:36, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

Attached a proposal how to develop a recommended vocabulary associated 
with the CRM, so far in order to refer to the meaning of deprecated classes.


My idea is to find good matches from AAT, if possible, or IFLA 
vocabularies.


Best,

Martin

--

  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

[Crm-sig] Issue 588: reifying .1 properties

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

I am reading through the discussion on issue 588 
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-588-common-policy-method-for-implementing-the-.1-properties-of-base-and-extensions-in-rdf) 
and looking forward to Pavlos's HW.


I was thinking that we should connect in the graph the property with its 
reified class. E.g.:


crm:PC14_carried_out_by → crm:P0x_reifies → crm:P14_carried_out_by

This way the two are connected in the graph and some automatic querying 
could be possible to programme.


With the usual apologies if I have misunderstood the discussion.

All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] Issue 531 - HW: Example from conservation / risk assessment

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

I was thinking that we can connect the example for Observable Situation 
with the example about flooding from CRMact for which their a draft 
property to connect to situation. So the proposed example is:


* the depth of the river Thames being 10 meters [i.e. about to overflow 
at Millbank when the Tate Archives collection will be put at risk of 
flooding] (fictitious)


Marta and Donatella may be able to provide a similar example with proper 
bibliographical reference from their project?


All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] issue 419: HW for activity plans

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Please find attached the version of CRMact which is submitted here for 
approval at the next SIG. Scope notes have been agreed already but 
please check the introductory text and bring comments to the meeting.


Many thanks to Vincent for the OntoMe support which made this work 
easier and to George for his comments.


All the best,

Thanasis

crmact-0.2-20220131-low.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 574 HW (was: Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112)

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Yes, this is a fine point and I struggled to find an example for such a 
case of P111. However there is also this:


https://www.demilked.com/bronze-hand-squeezed-trees-sculpture-giuseppe-penone/

which is rare but matches the case?

T.


On 29/01/2022 17:48, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear Thanasi, all,

I agree with all, except:

3) Example for E79 augmenting a natural object:

the carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph on the Culpa tree (Buhrich et al., 
2015)



4) Example for P110

The carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph (E79) augmentedthe Culpa tree 
(E20). (Buhrich et al., 2015)



I' argue that this example is a production of a human-made feature ex 
initio on the tree. I'd argue that the meaning of E79 is that a 
*pre-existing* thing has been added. Otherwise, it comes in conflict 
with production, and the tracing of things that become part of another 
and then travel with it through the world.


I propose *to modify *the scope note of E79 to make this clear. I think 
cases in which the /P111 added/ thing is not a "Physical Object" can 
only be sort of collections, in which the definition of the whole under 
consideration is expanded to comprise another feature, such as real 
estate properties.


The removal is not completely symmetric. It says that something has been 
removed, but the removed matter may have a unique identity only from the 
time of removal on, and then should be also a Production event.


The inverse, a part addition in which the added part looses its identity 
within the whole it augmented (and then be a destruction event??) may 
probably be too exotic (Frodo's Ring not withstanding).


All the best,

Martin

On 1/25/2022 3:20 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:


Dear all,

It turns out that we might also need to worry about P110. The HW for 
both is included here to discuss and vote at the next SIG:


1) Change the range of P112 diminished:

From:

E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To:

E18 Physical Thing


And update the property scope note from:

“This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing 
that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal. Although an 
instance of E80 Part removal activity normally concerns only one 
instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing, it is possible to imagine 
circumstances under which more than one item might be diminished by a 
single instance of E80 Part Removal activity.”


to:

“This property identifies the instance E18 Physical Thing that was 
diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal. Although an instance of 
E80 Part removal activity normally concerns only one instance of E18 
Physical Thing, it is possible to imagine circumstances under which 
more than one item might be diminished by a single instance of E80 
Part Removal activity.”



2) Update property under the scope note of E80 Part Remove

From:

P112 diminished (was diminished by): E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To:

P112 diminished (was diminished by): E18 Physical Thing


3) Example for E80 diminishing a natural object

the removal of the Porite coral specimen from the Cocos Islands by 
Charles Darwin in April 1836



4) Example for P112 diminished

The coral of the Cocos Islands (E20) was diminished byThe removal of 
the Porite coral specimen by Charles Darwin (E80).



Refs: 
https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/e1bfb1ab-e94e-4e0a-a13c-bc54e03f22e5 
<https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/e1bfb1ab-e94e-4e0a-a13c-bc54e03f22e5>https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html 
<https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html>



Extra HW for P110:


1) Change the range of P110 augmented:

From:

E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To:

E18 Physical Thing


And update the property scope note from:

“This property identifies the instance of E24 Physical Human-Made 
Thing that is added to (augmented) in an instance of E79 Part Addition.


Although an instance of E79 Part Addition event normally concerns only 
one instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing, it is possible to 
imagine circumstances under which more than one item might be added to 
(augmented). For example, the artist Jackson Pollock trailing paint 
onto multiple canvasses.”



To:

“This property identifies the instance of E18 Physical Thing that is 
added to (augmented) in an instance of E79 Part Addition.


Although an instance of E79 Part Addition event normally concerns only 
one instance of E18 Thing, it is possible to imagine circumstances 
under which more than one item might be added to (augmented). For 
example, the artist Jackson Pollock trailing paint onto multiple 
canvasses.”



2) Update Class E79 Part Addition:

Reference to property P110:

From

P110 augmented (was augmented by): E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To

P110 augmented (was augmented by): E18 Physical Thing


Scope note update:

From:

“This class comprises activities that result in an instance of E24 
Physical Human-Made Thing being increased, enlarged or

[Crm-sig] Issue 574 HW (was: Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112)

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

It turns out that we might also need to worry about P110. The HW for 
both is included here to discuss and vote at the next SIG:


1) Change the range of P112 diminished:

From:

E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To:

E18 Physical Thing


And update the property scope note from:

“This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing 
that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal. Although an 
instance of E80 Part removal activity normally concerns only one 
instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing, it is possible to imagine 
circumstances under which more than one item might be diminished by a 
single instance of E80 Part Removal activity.”


to:

“This property identifies the instance E18 Physical Thing that was 
diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal. Although an instance of 
E80 Part removal activity normally concerns only one instance of E18 
Physical Thing, it is possible to imagine circumstances under which more 
than one item might be diminished by a single instance of E80 Part 
Removal activity.”



2) Update property under the scope note of E80 Part Remove

From:

P112 diminished (was diminished by): E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To:

P112 diminished (was diminished by): E18 Physical Thing


3) Example for E80 diminishing a natural object

the removal of the Porite coral specimen from the Cocos Islands by 
Charles Darwin in April 1836



4) Example for P112 diminished

The coral of the Cocos Islands (E20) was diminished byThe removal of the 
Porite coral specimen by Charles Darwin (E80).



Refs: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/e1bfb1ab-e94e-4e0a-a13c-bc54e03f22e5 
<https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/e1bfb1ab-e94e-4e0a-a13c-bc54e03f22e5>https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html 
<https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html>



Extra HW for P110:


1) Change the range of P110 augmented:

From:

E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To:

E18 Physical Thing


And update the property scope note from:

“This property identifies the instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing 
that is added to (augmented) in an instance of E79 Part Addition.


Although an instance of E79 Part Addition event normally concerns only 
one instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing, it is possible to imagine 
circumstances under which more than one item might be added to 
(augmented). For example, the artist Jackson Pollock trailing paint onto 
multiple canvasses.”



To:

“This property identifies the instance of E18 Physical Thing that is 
added to (augmented) in an instance of E79 Part Addition.


Although an instance of E79 Part Addition event normally concerns only 
one instance of E18 Thing, it is possible to imagine circumstances under 
which more than one item might be added to (augmented). For example, the 
artist Jackson Pollock trailing paint onto multiple canvasses.”



2) Update Class E79 Part Addition:

Reference to property P110:

From

P110 augmented (was augmented by): E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To

P110 augmented (was augmented by): E18 Physical Thing


Scope note update:

From:

“This class comprises activities that result in an instance of E24 
Physical Human-Made Thing being increased, enlarged or augmented by the 
addition of a part.”


To:

“This class comprises activities that result in an instance of E18 
Physical Thing being increased, enlarged or augmented by the addition of 
a part.”



3) Example for E79 augmenting a natural object:

the carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph on the Culpa tree (Buhrich et al., 
2015)



4) Example for P110:

The carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph (E79) augmentedthe Culpa tree 
(E20). (Buhrich et al., 2015)



Ref: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03122417.2015.11682048 
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03122417.2015.11682048>


Looking forward to comments and the discussion.

All the best,

Thanasis

On 13/12/2021 09:58, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:

In which case I suppose the proposal to discuss at the next SIG is:

1) change the range of P112 from E24 Physical Human-Made Thing to E18 
Physical Thing

2) fix the reference to the property under the scope note of E80
3) add an example to E80 and a corresponding example to P112 for 
non-man-made things.


Could we assign a new issue number to this?

All the best,

Thanasis

On 05/12/2021 19:44, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

Actually the class was also designed for cutting parts from 
archaeological objects, natural history stuff etc. We had a long 
discussion if, in the very instant, a part is broken from a natural 
object, e.g. for sampling, the diminished becomes "human made". We 
later ultimately decided that this violates identity criteria of 
classes. It just leaves a human-made feature on a natural object.


Therefore, we need to revise wherever this logic had been applied 
before.


Best,

Martin


On 11/30/2021 11:25 PM, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:


Ahh,

[Crm-sig] Open CRM-SIG editorial group

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

The preparation of version 7 largely coincided with the disruption 
caused by COVID-19 which saw the CRM-SIG meetings moving online. In 
order to prepare for the online meetings and organise the work of the 
SIG an ad-hoc group was formed consisting of the chairs of the CIDOC-CRM 
SIG, the main editors of the then forthcoming version 7 and a 
convenor/secretary, in collaboration with the technical support team at 
ICS-FORTH.


The current members of the group are: Chrysoula Bekiari, George 
Bruseker, Martin Doerr, Christian-Emil Ore, Stephen Stead, Eleni 
Tsoulouha, and Thanasis Velios. This group organises the agenda for the 
SIG meetings and chairs its sessions, tracks issues, edits the CRM 
definition document and monitors the interaction of the SIG with 
external bodies.


The group needs to meet regularly and more frequently during the weeks 
leading to a SIG meeting. Each group meeting requires some preparation 
and members do their best to attend as many virtual meetings as possible 
and to deliver accepted tasks in time. We would now like to formalise 
this group by discussion and decision at the next SIG meeting as the 
"open CRM-SIG editorial group", a practical solution to engage community 
members that can devote enough time and work for this task, and to 
invite volunteer members of the community to join. We are pleased to 
welcome a new member already: Erin Canning.


If you wish to join the group please contact one of the listed members.

We also invite proposals on how best this group can function to support 
the community.


All the best,

Thanasis (on behalf of the group)
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: "causal" in P14 scope note

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

In which case, can I suggest the following change to the scope note:

Old scope note:
This property describes the active participation of an instance of E39 
Actor in an instance of E7 Activity. It implies causal or legal 
responsibility. The P14.1 in the role of property of the property 
specifies the nature of an Actor’s participation.


Proposed new scope note:
This property describes the active participation of an instance of E39 
Actor in an instance of E7 Activity. It implies causal or legal 
responsibility. For instances of E39 Actor whose inactive presence has a 
causal impact to the activity or they are active without sharing the 
responsibility of the activity, the property P11 had participant 
(participated in) should be used instead. The P14.1 in the role of 
property of the property specifies the nature of the participation for 
the instance of E39 Actor.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 12/01/2022 20:31, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear Robert,

Yes, scope notes can always be improved!

The role of the child should definitely not be regarded as P14. 
Necessary participation is definitey not meant by "causal" or "legal 
responsibility" in this scope note. P14 is meant in an active sense. In 
a sense, any participation may have an impact on an event. This was not 
meant here.


Similarly, patients in a surgery are necessary, but do not carry it out.
However, there are well-known criminal cases in which participation 
without inhibiting murder etc. are regarded as legally co-responsible. 
In that case, we should rather use P14, in my opinion.


Since participation is a generalization of P14, the difference for the 
recall/ precision of querying the CRM is however marginal.


Best,

Martin

On 1/12/2022 7:32 PM, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

A question came up in the Linked Art group today about the intent of 
"causal" in the scope not for P14 carried out by.


The scope note reads, in its entirety:

This property describes the active participation of an instance of
E39 Actor in an instance of E7 Activity.It implies causal or legal
responsibility. The /P14.1 in the role of /property of the
property specifies the nature of an Actor’s participation.


The particular scenario being discussed was the baptism of a child and 
whether it could be said that the baby carried out the activity or was 
merely a participant or present.  The child is a necessary participant 
in the activity, but does that make their participation "causal"? 
Whether the child is actively or passively participating seems 
difficult to determine so we didn't rule P14 out on those grounds.


For such an important property, I think we could easily improve the 
scope note :)


Rob

--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University

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



--

  Dr. Martin Doerr
   
  Honorary Head of the

  Center for Cultural Informatics
  
  Information Systems Laboratory

  Institute of Computer Science
  Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
   
  N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,

  GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
  
  Vox:+30(2810)391625
  Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl



___
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] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Forgive me George for bringing up my original comment - it is entirely 
possible that I have not understood the problem.


It seems to me that what is really missing is the connection between the 
event and the outcome. It seems that you are saying that it is a causal 
connection. Shortcutting that to the type of the outcome is exactly the 
process of Typed Properties (TPs) and negating that is the process of 
Negative Typed Properties (NTPs), both of which are still being baked. 
Adding TPs to CRM base is a bad idea in my view, as it is a specific 
solution for RDFS and it is not needed in other implementations.


So maybe break down the problem to:

1) See if we need a new class for outcome
2) Define a causal property (which we have avoided so far)
3) Finish the TPs and NTPs, which I hope will be done soon

Maybe discussing live at the SIG is easier.

All the best,

Thanasis

On 07/01/2022 10:08, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Hi Rob / Francesco / Martin,

These are all nice examples that maybe we could dig into further, maybe 
they display the 'senses of outcome' problem Martin is pointing to?


An ontological problem that seems to come up in my mind as I try to 
conceptualize this is do we mean


1) outcome of type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular 
event of a type (the particular event we do not know much about expect 
that it was caused by the first event and has some type)


2) outcome of a type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular 
event that had particular properties (the particular event we do not 
know much about expect that it produced something, showed something, 
modified something and was caused by the first event)


3) outcome as an evaluation of achievement of an event (succeeds, fails) 
- we only talk about one event and evaluate whether it achieves its goal


These can all cause trouble.

So for example the JFK Assassination:

(E7) Shooting at JFK, (E69) JFK dies

So if we choose to model these as two separate events (legitimate), then 
Shooting of JFK had general purpose 'death' and we know in fact that the 
shooting triggers the death of JFK (no bullets in JFK, no dead JFK that 
day, the shooting caused the death).


So the shortcut 'had outcome of type' could be 'death' just in case we 
didn't know anything about the particular death event of JFK and didn't 
want to instantiate it as a node.


Shooting of JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) has type "Death" (E55)

So here it is that there is an event of type X that is shortcut.

That would be sense 1.

Sense 2 would be something like

Shooting at JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) kills JFK (E21)

So here it would be the particular property of E69 to 'kill' an E21 that 
would be shortcuted


We could also have sense 3, 'had outcome of type' 'success'. As in, the 
assassin had general purpose 'death' and the outcome was 'success'.


How would this work in the other examples:

An archeological expedition -- resulted in outcome of type "came
home empty handed" / "found something"


So we have an initial event

Archeological Expedition (E7) has general purpose "Find Something" (E55)
Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type "Found Something" (E55)

And then would the shortcut mean:

a) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1) has type 
Found Something (E55)


or

b) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1) 
encountered Object (E22)


(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... that would 
seem more like a rule than a property)

or

c) Archeological Expedition (E7) had purpose Find Something (E55)
Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type Found Something (E55)

So here it wouldn't imply a pass through to another event but would 
evaluate this event in itself.



Commission of an artwork -- resulted in outcome of type "artist ran
off with the money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist
produced what was wanted" / ...


Commission of Artwork (E7) had general purpose 'production of artwork'
Commission of Artwork (E7) had outcome of type "artist ran off with the 
money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what was 
wanted"


And then would these shortcuts mean:

a) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) has 
type "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what was 
wanted" (E55)


or

Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Activity (E7) has type "artist ran 
off with the money" (E55)


So in the above cases it either shortcuts an E12 or an E7 which we don't 
have any details about but for which we would have classificatory terms 
like 'desired production', 'undesired production' OR 'theft/loss' or 
something like this. As per Martin's mail on types it falls to the 
vocabulary to tell us which CRM event type is implied...


or

b) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) produced Some 
Object (E22)


(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Following Athina's response and in relation to the question about the 
extant properties, I guess the "type of type" can be replicated with 
thesaurus related properties (e.g. P127 has broader term). I would 
consider the instances of E55 Type slightly differently to normal 
instances and not extent the idea to them.


T.

On 14/12/2021 19:42, George Bruseker wrote:

Hi Thanasi,

Yes that's true. Good reminder. That might be a solution but then we 
would need the particular property for expressing that two events are 
causally connected. I avoided to put it in the last email so as not to 
stir up to many semantic teapots. But obviously to have the general 
property we should have the particular property. So we have for example 
we have the particular properties:


https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1 
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1>

and
https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1 
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1>


so the analogy to this in my situation is probably

O13 triggers (is triggered by)
https://cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.4.pdf 
<https://cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.4.pdf>

and we need the analogy of p21 to make the model complete

On another note out of curiosity, in the extension where every property 
has a 'type of' property what happens with the extant 'type of' 
properties? I assume there isn't any has general purpose of type 
property... or is there?


Cheers

G

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 9:20 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:


Hi George, all,

As part of Linked Conservation Data (and with the help of Carlo, Martin
and Steve) we proposed the idea of Typed Properties which derive from
current CRM properties and always have E55 Type as range.

E.g. "bears feature" → "bears feature of type" so that one can describe
the type of something without specifying the individual. It is very
economical in conservation where we want to avoid describing
hundreds of
individuals of similar types.

We are still baking the exact impact of such a reduction from
individuals to Types. One issue in RDFS is the multitude of new
properties. There seems to be a simple implementation in OWL with
property paths. Not an immediate solution but a flag for more to come.

All the best,

Thanasis

On 14/12/2021 15:49, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
 > Hi all,
 >
 > I have situations in which I have events where the data curators
 > describe events for which they have generic knowledge of the
outcome:
 > sold, completed, incomplete, this sort of thing. So there is
knowledge
 > but it is not knowledge of the particular next event but of a
general
 > kind of outcome.
 >
 > We have properties like: P21 had general purpose (was purpose of)
which
 > is very useful for when the data curator only has generic knowledge
 > knowledge and not particular knowledge regarding purpose. This
seems a
 > parallel to this case.
 >
 > Anybody else have this case and have an interest in a property
like 'had
 > general outcome' or 'had outcome of type' that goes from Event to a
 > Type? Or, better yet if possible, a solution that doesn't involve
a new
 > property but that does meet this semantic need without too many
contortions?
 >
 > Best,
 >
 > George
 >
 > ___
 > Crm-sig mailing list
 > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
 > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
 >
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
<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] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Hi George, all,

As part of Linked Conservation Data (and with the help of Carlo, Martin 
and Steve) we proposed the idea of Typed Properties which derive from 
current CRM properties and always have E55 Type as range.


E.g. "bears feature" → "bears feature of type" so that one can describe 
the type of something without specifying the individual. It is very 
economical in conservation where we want to avoid describing hundreds of 
individuals of similar types.


We are still baking the exact impact of such a reduction from 
individuals to Types. One issue in RDFS is the multitude of new 
properties. There seems to be a simple implementation in OWL with 
property paths. Not an immediate solution but a flag for more to come.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 14/12/2021 15:49, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Hi all,

I have situations in which I have events where the data curators 
describe events for which they have generic knowledge of the outcome: 
sold, completed, incomplete, this sort of thing. So there is knowledge 
but it is not knowledge of the particular next event but of a general 
kind of outcome.


We have properties like: P21 had general purpose (was purpose of) which 
is very useful for when the data curator only has generic knowledge 
knowledge and not particular knowledge regarding purpose. This seems a 
parallel to this case.


Anybody else have this case and have an interest in a property like 'had 
general outcome' or 'had outcome of type' that goes from Event to a 
Type? Or, better yet if possible, a solution that doesn't involve a new 
property but that does meet this semantic need without too many contortions?


Best,

George

___
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] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

In which case I suppose the proposal to discuss at the next SIG is:

1) change the range of P112 from E24 Physical Human-Made Thing to E18 
Physical Thing

2) fix the reference to the property under the scope note of E80
3) add an example to E80 and a corresponding example to P112 for 
non-man-made things.


Could we assign a new issue number to this?

All the best,

Thanasis

On 05/12/2021 19:44, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

Actually the class was also designed for cutting parts from 
archaeological objects, natural history stuff etc. We had a long 
discussion if, in the very instant, a part is broken from a natural 
object, e.g. for sampling, the diminished becomes "human made". We later 
ultimately decided that this violates identity criteria of classes. It 
just leaves a human-made feature on a natural object.


Therefore, we need to revise wherever this logic had been applied before.

Best,

Martin


On 11/30/2021 11:25 PM, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:


Ahh, thank you, I understand now. Well, the scope notes of the various 
classes and properties should be improved to make that clear if it's 
the case.
And then we would need to have the discussion about how to remove 
fragments from meteorites, so I hope that's _not_ the case :D


R


On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:59 PM Athanasios Velios 
 wrote:


I completely understand the reasoning and I agree that intuitively a
tree with a broken branch is a diminished thing. It is just that the
scope note and all of the examples in E80 Part Removal are for
Human-Made things so I worry that the class has been designed for
Human-Made things only, i.e. breaking off the original branch may
not be
E80. Part Addition and Part Removal are designed to allow us to track
the use of a component integrated intentionally in multiple
objects over
its history, so it may be that a thing needs to be added before it
can
be removed. If we care about the tree prior to cutting the branch
then
it may be only a modification. Am I taking it too far?

Having said that, pushing the property higher in the hierarchy,
although
I am told we should avoid it in general, in this case it may not
cause
too many problems.

T.

P.S. Amazingly, the inconsistency between the scope note and property
range existed since version 3.4.



--

  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] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

I completely understand the reasoning and I agree that intuitively a 
tree with a broken branch is a diminished thing. It is just that the 
scope note and all of the examples in E80 Part Removal are for 
Human-Made things so I worry that the class has been designed for 
Human-Made things only, i.e. breaking off the original branch may not be 
E80. Part Addition and Part Removal are designed to allow us to track 
the use of a component integrated intentionally in multiple objects over 
its history, so it may be that a thing needs to be added before it can 
be removed. If we care about the tree prior to cutting the branch then 
it may be only a modification. Am I taking it too far?


Having said that, pushing the property higher in the hierarchy, although 
I am told we should avoid it in general, in this case it may not cause 
too many problems.


T.

P.S. Amazingly, the inconsistency between the scope note and property 
range existed since version 3.4.


On 30/11/2021 14:00, Robert Sanderson wrote:


It makes sense for the twig from the branch, but not from the branch 
from the tree (or stalactite from the cave, fragment for study from a 
meteorite, etc etc).
Removing the branch/fragment from the tree/meteorite results in a 
Human-Made Object (via the Part Removal / Production), but the 
tree/meteroite that is P112 diminished by the activity does not become a 
Physical Human-Made Thing in the process. It stays an E20 Biological 
Object/E19 Physical Object, just a smaller one.


R


On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:45 AM Athanasios Velios 
mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>> wrote:


Hm, I do not consider it as a value statement, but as indication of the
intension. Breaking a tree branch which is worth putting in your
collection is a production of a Human-Made Object (as well as a
Biological Object). So when you break the twig off the branch, you are
removing a part from a Human-Made thing. In other words you cannot
remove a part unless it is included intentionally on the original thing
in the first place. Does this make sense?

T.


On 29/11/2021 19:57, Robert Sanderson wrote:
 >
 > Isn't "diminished" just a label, rather than a value statement? I
don't
 > think something needs to be complete for a part to be removed (I can
 > break a twig off the branch, which I previously broke off the
tree). I
 > read it as "was made smaller by" in that some part was removed.
 > I agree that Part Removal is not always a Production -- the same
part
 > could be added and removed several times, and clearly not all of
them
 > are Productions. [Personally, I would never say it was a
Production, but
 > that a Production might have a Part Removal as a part of it]
 >
 > Here's a related question... Can an E78 Curated Holding have a
Physical
 > Feature as part of it? Conceptually, yes ... but E78 is a physical
 > aggregate, not a conceptual thing. Does the collections system of
Arches
 > National Park have records for the rock formations? Surely it
must. And
 > if the National Park boundaries were changed, then the arched rock
 > formations that no longer fell within the protected area would
have to
 > be removed from the E78. So I think I even retract "you can't remove
 > features" given the physicality of E78.
 >
 > Rob
 >
 >
 > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:05 PM Athanasios Velios
 > mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>
<mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>>>
wrote:
 >
 >     Yes this is a logical position. I guess the way I have been
reading it
 >     is that the object that is diminished was indeed
intentionally made
 >     by a
 >     human and therefore it *can* be diminished. If it is any
thing then who
 >     judges if it is complete and has been diminished? There is no
agency on
 >     its original "production".
 >
 >     The reason we have E18 as range is because the removed item's
identity
 >     is not that of a human made object. I.e. Part removal is not a
 >     Production which I think is the reason the following sentence
is in the
 >     scope note:
 >
 >     "In cases where the part removed has no discernible identity
prior to
 >     its removal but does have an identity subsequent to its
removal, the
 >     activity should be modelled as both an instance of E80 Part
Removal and
 >     E12 Production."
 >
 >     hence the removed part is pushed up to E18.
 >
 >     T.
 >
 >
 >     On 29/11/2021 16:36, Robert Sanderson wrote:
 >      >
 >     

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Hm, I do not consider it as a value statement, but as indication of the 
intension. Breaking a tree branch which is worth putting in your 
collection is a production of a Human-Made Object (as well as a 
Biological Object). So when you break the twig off the branch, you are 
removing a part from a Human-Made thing. In other words you cannot 
remove a part unless it is included intentionally on the original thing 
in the first place. Does this make sense?


T.


On 29/11/2021 19:57, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Isn't "diminished" just a label, rather than a value statement? I don't 
think something needs to be complete for a part to be removed (I can 
break a twig off the branch, which I previously broke off the tree). I 
read it as "was made smaller by" in that some part was removed.
I agree that Part Removal is not always a Production -- the same part 
could be added and removed several times, and clearly not all of them 
are Productions. [Personally, I would never say it was a Production, but 
that a Production might have a Part Removal as a part of it]


Here's a related question... Can an E78 Curated Holding have a Physical 
Feature as part of it? Conceptually, yes ... but E78 is a physical 
aggregate, not a conceptual thing. Does the collections system of Arches 
National Park have records for the rock formations? Surely it must. And 
if the National Park boundaries were changed, then the arched rock 
formations that no longer fell within the protected area would have to 
be removed from the E78. So I think I even retract "you can't remove 
features" given the physicality of E78.


Rob


On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:05 PM Athanasios Velios 
mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>> wrote:


Yes this is a logical position. I guess the way I have been reading it
is that the object that is diminished was indeed intentionally made
by a
human and therefore it *can* be diminished. If it is any thing then who
judges if it is complete and has been diminished? There is no agency on
its original "production".

The reason we have E18 as range is because the removed item's identity
is not that of a human made object. I.e. Part removal is not a
Production which I think is the reason the following sentence is in the
scope note:

"In cases where the part removed has no discernible identity prior to
its removal but does have an identity subsequent to its removal, the
activity should be modelled as both an instance of E80 Part Removal and
E12 Production."

hence the removed part is pushed up to E18.

T.


On 29/11/2021 16:36, Robert Sanderson wrote:
 >
 > Good spotting! I agree with Thanasis that there is any issue, but I
 > think that the range is wrong for P112, which I would argue
should also
 > be E18.
 >
 > For example, I find a tree and break off a branch. The tree is not a
 > Human-Made Thing, it's an E20 Biological Object. Or I break a
piece of
 > obsidian (I would argue an E19) into two. Or if the obsidian is
part of
 > a lava flow, then it would be a physical feature ... and thus we
end up
 > at E18 as the common ancestor.
 >
 > I think that E18 remains correct for P113, given the described
use of
 > removal of a part from an E78 Curated Holding. If I remove a
meteorite
 > fragment from the collection of a natural history museum, the
meteorite
 > is (again, I would argue) an E19. Now ... can it ever be an E18
Physical
 > Thing but not an E19 Physical Object? It can't be a Feature, as they
 > cannot be removed, ruling out E26 and below. However E78 is an E24
 > Physical Human-Made Thing, but not an E19 Physical Object.  If we
use
 > E78 to model sub-collections, and sub-collections can be removed
from
 > their parent, then yes, here is a case where we need E18.
 >
 > Rob
 >
 >
 > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
 > mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>> wrote:
 >
 >     Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to
update the
 >     scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that
E80 Part
 >     Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off
in a cave.
 >
 >     Thanasis
 >
 >     On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote:
 >      > Hello,
 >      >
 >      > I am hoping you might be able to help me with a small
confusion -
 >      >
 >      > The scope note for E80_Part_Removal
 >      >
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1
<

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Yes this is a logical position. I guess the way I have been reading it 
is that the object that is diminished was indeed intentionally made by a 
human and therefore it *can* be diminished. If it is any thing then who 
judges if it is complete and has been diminished? There is no agency on 
its original "production".


The reason we have E18 as range is because the removed item's identity 
is not that of a human made object. I.e. Part removal is not a 
Production which I think is the reason the following sentence is in the 
scope note:


"In cases where the part removed has no discernible identity prior to 
its removal but does have an identity subsequent to its removal, the 
activity should be modelled as both an instance of E80 Part Removal and 
E12 Production."


hence the removed part is pushed up to E18.

T.


On 29/11/2021 16:36, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Good spotting! I agree with Thanasis that there is any issue, but I 
think that the range is wrong for P112, which I would argue should also 
be E18.


For example, I find a tree and break off a branch. The tree is not a 
Human-Made Thing, it's an E20 Biological Object. Or I break a piece of 
obsidian (I would argue an E19) into two. Or if the obsidian is part of 
a lava flow, then it would be a physical feature ... and thus we end up 
at E18 as the common ancestor.


I think that E18 remains correct for P113, given the described use of 
removal of a part from an E78 Curated Holding. If I remove a meteorite 
fragment from the collection of a natural history museum, the meteorite 
is (again, I would argue) an E19. Now ... can it ever be an E18 Physical 
Thing but not an E19 Physical Object? It can't be a Feature, as they 
cannot be removed, ruling out E26 and below. However E78 is an E24 
Physical Human-Made Thing, but not an E19 Physical Object.  If we use 
E78 to model sub-collections, and sub-collections can be removed from 
their parent, then yes, here is a case where we need E18.


Rob


On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:


Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to update the
scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that E80 Part
Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off in a cave.

Thanasis

On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > I am hoping you might be able to help me with a small confusion -
 >
 > The scope note for E80_Part_Removal
 > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1>> states
 > that "This class comprises the activities that result in an
instance of
 > E18 Physical Thing being decreased by the removal of a part."
This reads
 > to me as if the relationship would then go: E80 > P112_diminished
 > E18,
 > as P112 creates the connection to the thing being diminished (having
 > something removed from it), as opposed to P113_removed, which is
for the
 > connection to the thing that was removed.
 > However, the range of P112 is E24, not E18, and the scope note for
 > P112_diminished
 > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1>> reads
 > "This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
 > that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal."
 > Meanwhile, the range of P113_removed
 > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1>> is E18, as
 > is the range of P31_has_modified <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121
<https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121>>, the
 > superproperty of P112.
 >
 > It seems to me therefore that either I am reading the scope note
 > incorrectly (very possible!) or that there is an inconsistency
between
 > the two, perhaps in the range of P112?
 >
 > I looked in the Issues history for anything about this, and
wonder if
 > the discussion around the change of P31 (Issue 191
 > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31>>) might have
relevance
 > to either the range or language around it, as in that case the
range of
 > P31 was relaxed from E24 to E18. Although, that being said, this
 > perceived E18/E24 inconsistency as described above exists as far
back as
 > v4.0 <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80
<https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80>>, the earliest
 > version available on the website, so p

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to update the 
scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that E80 Part 
Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off in a cave.


Thanasis

On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote:

Hello,

I am hoping you might be able to help me with a small confusion -

The scope note for E80_Part_Removal 
 states 
that "This class comprises the activities that result in an instance of 
E18 Physical Thing being decreased by the removal of a part." This reads 
to me as if the relationship would then go: E80 > P112_diminished > E18, 
as P112 creates the connection to the thing being diminished (having 
something removed from it), as opposed to P113_removed, which is for the 
connection to the thing that was removed.
However, the range of P112 is E24, not E18, and the scope note for 
P112_diminished 
 reads 
"This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing 
that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal."
Meanwhile, the range of P113_removed 
 is E18, as 
is the range of P31_has_modified , the 
superproperty of P112.


It seems to me therefore that either I am reading the scope note 
incorrectly (very possible!) or that there is an inconsistency between 
the two, perhaps in the range of P112?


I looked in the Issues history for anything about this, and wonder if 
the discussion around the change of P31 (Issue 191 
) might have relevance 
to either the range or language around it, as in that case the range of 
P31 was relaxed from E24 to E18. Although, that being said, this 
perceived E18/E24 inconsistency as described above exists as far back as 
v4.0 , the earliest 
version available on the website, so perhaps it is my reading of the 
scope note that is backwards...


To summarize, my question is - Which is the correct range of P112: E18 
as stated in the E80 scope note or E24 as stated in the P112 scope note 
and range; or am I reading this set of notes/relationships incorrectly?


Thanks for your guidance on this,
Erin Canning



___
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] PLEASE VOTE: New Member.

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

YES

On 27/11/2021 20:21, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear All,

It is a great pleasure and honor for us to announce that the Palace 
Museum in Beijing applies for CRM-SIG membership.


I have received the following request from the Museum:

"The Palace Museum would like to apply for the CRM-SIG membership. Ye 
Yipei, who is now already attending the CRM-SIG meetings informally, 
would be the Museum's representative. She is now also formally a CIDOC 
member. We would be honored to have the opportunity to learn from and 
work with the experts and colleagues from the CRM-SIG".


PLEASE VOTE  "YES" if you support the new member,

no, if not,

by Dec. 10, 2021.

All the best,

Martin


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

[Crm-sig] Modelling advice: Online event

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

What is the current practice for modelling online events such as the SIG 
meetings on zoom or speaking to someone on the phone. The phenomena are 
coherent in that there is meaningful interaction with/through devices as 
a result of the discussion. Do people consider the event simply 
happenning in a non-contiguous spatial projection, i.e. in many places?


Also how come and "P161 has spatial projection" is a sub-property of "P7 
took place at", when (their domains) "E4 Period" is a subclass of "E92 
Spacetime Volume". Is this a mislabeling of properties on page 118 of 7.1.1?


With the usual apologies if I have missed discussions or misunderstood 
things.


All the best,

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

Re: [Crm-sig] Argument for an Instrument Class (and its property)

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

I think this would be a useful discussion and class. It has also been 
proposed within the PARCOURS model although perhaps a tighter proposal 
can be made.


Thanasis

P.S. The example for P103 could do with updating...

On 01/09/2021 20:47, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:

Hi George,

I think this is a good idea, of course, we should first look at a more 
specific property, since "instruments" can be very heterogeneous, or we 
concentrate on measurement devices in a narrower sense.


Best,

Martin

On 8/25/2021 12:53 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear all,

I am working on a conservation science modelling project in which the 
users document also their machinery. Something that comes up is that 
they want to document the kind of property or variable that is 
measured by the machine. This is a property of the machine, what it 
can do (dunamis).


We of course already have p103 was intended for
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/P103-was-intended-for/version-7.1.1 



I already make use of this for the purpose of documenting the general 
kind of method the machine can be used for.


But when you run the machine, it tests for certain variables and 
produces a resulting output which is a digital record of a signal 
carrying that variable.


This reminds me of some elements from CRMSci and from CRMdig

CRMSci has observations that look for property types:

S4 Observation
O9 observed property type E55

http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.3.pdf 



We also have in CRMdig both a class for instruments (digital ones)

D8 Digital Device

and we again have a notion of an observation kind of event measuing a 
kind of thing


D11 Digital Measurement Event
L17 measured thing of type E55

http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmdig/sites/default/files/CRMdig_v3.2.1.pdf 



So, anyhow, putting that all together, I note:

people document their scientific machines and what they do
some of the properties pertain to the machine (it may measure only 
these things)
there are several references to such a property already in crmsci and 
dig but placed on the event.


So I wonder, for discussion, is there an interest in an instrument 
class (possibly beginning a bridge between sci and dig) which would 
not just be a leaf node but have its own substantial properties. I 
suggest a first one might be something like 'measures 
property/variable of type'.


This is not yet a proposal for such a thing, just an invitation to 
discussion for those who are interested on the potential utility of 
such an addition.


Best,

George


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



--

  Dr. Martin Doerr
   
  Honorary Head of the

  Center for Cultural Informatics
  
  Information Systems Laboratory

  Institute of Computer Science
  Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
   
  N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,

  GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
  
  Vox:+30(2810)391625
  Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl



___
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] Proposal/though: Add URLs to official documentation

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

I agree with this. Shouldn't it be part of the RDF implementation document?

Thanasis

On 20/07/2021 15:37, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:


Wholehearted agreement. Even if they're expressed in different ways by 
different representations of the conceptual model, if we can standardize 
the URI then an RDFS description and an OWL description of *the same 
URIs* can be used by different communities without breaking 
interoperability. If we get RDF*, or other declarative technological 
models for describing graph structures, then they too could describe the 
use of the URIs in their contexts.


Rob

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 6:03 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:


Dear all,

Many people try to use the CIDOC CRM in order to build sustainable,
reusable data sources and connect into a wider linked open data web.

When they do so, they would like to easily be able to find / use the
URIs for the classes and properties that the standard declares.

The official documentation does not include this information in a
handy way.

Proposal for discussion: include the URIs for the classes and
properties as clickable links that resolve to the online space where
they are maintained in the word/pdf specification.

Discuss!

Best,

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




--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University

___
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] E-vote for issue 493 (example templates)

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear Maja,

Good point, I think it would be useful to add that there is a separate 
tool to keep track of the works cited in the document (i.e. the Zotero 
library) which takes care of the formatting of the bibliography 
automatically, but of course someone needs to enter the references in 
that. I can add a note.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 23/06/2021 12:16, Žumer, Maja wrote:

YES.

I have a question, though. The guideline says:
"Each example should include a bibliographical reference using the 
Harvard in-text citation
guidelines ( 
https://www.citethisforme.com/harvard-referencing#harvard-in-text-citations 
), if
it is not a commonly known fact. In particular, it should be not assumed 
that all cultures
using the CRM have the same historical background knowledge. Fictitious 
examples are

not preferred, but should be marked as such."

But there is no guideline how to enter the full reference. As a 
footnote/endnote? If no full reference is provided, the citation is 
meaningless...


Best regards
Maja


*Od:* Crm-sig  v imenu Athanasios Velios 
via Crm-sig 

*Poslano:* petek, 18. junij 2021 11:47
*Za:* crm-sig 
*Zadeva:* [Crm-sig] E-vote for issue 493 (example templates)

Dear all,

This issue is about agreeing a rationale and a template based on which 
CRMbase and CRM extension examples will be produced. The working 
document for this issue is here:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-PIIjXkDul1F0A7AoA4S95H0qY2CY9a7BKa1HK7wicA/edit?usp=sharing 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-PIIjXkDul1F0A7AoA4S95H0qY2CY9a7BKa1HK7wicA/edit?usp=sharing>


The homework including annotated templates is here:

odt: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtZBSx5ZCOQ5ntFUf34TY-_aeR4OIrJY/view?usp=sharing 
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtZBSx5ZCOQ5ntFUf34TY-_aeR4OIrJY/view?usp=sharing>


docx: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S6ZAy7Y3TO2ndNtJNkf-NrFeMpVNnXAj/view?usp=sharing 
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S6ZAy7Y3TO2ndNtJNkf-NrFeMpVNnXAj/view?usp=sharing>


The vote is to decide on whether to adopt the homework document.

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 proposal, 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...')

Please send your e-votes by the 28th of June.

All the best,

Thanasis


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

[Crm-sig] E-vote for issue 384 (template for family models)

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

  
  
 Dear all,
This issue is about agreeing a template based on which the
  specification documents of CRM family models will be produced. The
  working document for this issue is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N09On4q4j4c8mIvSfMZTsWk-vsUIkdn2jRIzBlW8smU/edit?usp=sharing
The proposed template is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xWq1SIcoSNMmmwpO3TfE6LTC9cYsRapy/view?usp=sharing

The vote is to decide on whether to adopt the template document.
  The main change from the existing template is the inclusion of a
  table for class and property dependencies to allow clear
  references to other models without repeating material and while
  keeping track of different versions.

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 proposal, 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...')

Please send your e-votes by the 28th of June.
All the best,
Thanasis

  

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

[Crm-sig] E-vote for issue 493 (example templates)

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

  
  
 Dear all,
This issue is about agreeing a rationale and a template based on
  which CRMbase and CRM extension examples will be produced. The
  working document for this issue is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-PIIjXkDul1F0A7AoA4S95H0qY2CY9a7BKa1HK7wicA/edit?usp=sharing
The homework including annotated templates is here:
odt:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtZBSx5ZCOQ5ntFUf34TY-_aeR4OIrJY/view?usp=sharing
docx:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S6ZAy7Y3TO2ndNtJNkf-NrFeMpVNnXAj/view?usp=sharing

The vote is to decide on whether to adopt the homework document.

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 proposal, 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...')

Please send your e-votes by the 28th of June.
All the best,
Thanasis

  

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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 274: archetypical sounds

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Maybe we have failed to document the issue in its development but my 
understanding was that we were looking for use cases from sound arts 
where a sound piece with distinct identity (for example) has been used 
as part of another sound piece. The integration would have been required 
to identify these as related separate entities thus providing an 
additional argument for the new class. This is different to the typical 
preservation metadata documented for audio recordings or performances.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 15/06/2021 10:24, George Bruseker wrote:
I imagine I'm running fast at windmills here but I already prepared a 
homework for this several sigs ago in which I list dozens of collections 
of sounds. There is documentation and research on sound in CH.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ziNlZNCAYxAATNP7jycBPKT-v9Rhg4RUHt4dlpPS4-c/edit 



What exactly are we searching for in this issue?

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 5:29 PM Дарья Юрьевна Гук via Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:


__
Dear colleagues,

the examples of cataloguing the audiovisual information exist, and
an expert gave it me:

http://www.dapx.org/showservices.asp?ID=1003&fbclid=IwAR1MoBC2u07qVOGw5X3z2nZRjiu64SYAWDt6PQx-qlG8bRmmqkpPlo2srkE


Details: Chinese standard includes 25 positions of metadata (code of
archive, its category, level of invenorisation, unique identifier,
file numver, name of the scan creator, date of digital copying, date
of the next conversion/migration, permission, notes, address of real
location, original носитель, mode of digital copying, copying
device, software and OS, name of file, size of file, format, video
parameters, audio paremeters etc.)

Something similar was  proposed for the Russian archives.

With kind regards,
Daria Hookk

Senior Researcher of
the dept. of archaeology of
Eastern Europe and Siberia of
the State Hermitage Museum,
PhD, ICOMOS member

E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru 
Skype: daria.hookk
https://hermitage.academia.edu/HookkDaria

___
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] Issue 537 Homework

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

I have created a quick drawing which I think captures the proposed 
changes if people find it easier instead of the text (I do :-) ). I 
think the proposed changes seem reasonable and also help tidying up the 
property hierarchy.


drawio:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gmk1pmiKS6cCrUZDZ5iIL8UVqq_TmRxc/view?usp=sharing

pdf:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12dcOxgpR0WbzBMwbdmM4gRIEvmQEpdAJ/view?usp=sharing

All the best,

Thanasis

On 08/06/2021 14:41, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:


My +1 to this reformulation.

Rob

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:05 AM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:


Dear Robert, All,

The current problem of S4 Observation is the single-property
formulation, dictated by E13 Attribute Assignment, but compatible
with INSPIRE and E16 Measurement. On the other side, it will never
allow for observing distances. Therefore, in order to proceed the
generalization of Measurement in CRMsci, we can take two paths:

A)Consider a minimal change in the definition of S15 Observable
Entity and S4 Observation, generalize E16 Measurement with these
definitions, and later revise S15,S4 to be a wider generalization.
This will leave us with a consistent intermediate stage.

B)Begin with change in the definition of S15 Observable Entity and
S4 Observation, Issue 531, and then rework all properties.

I describe here solution A (a modification of the previous
formulation of this issue).

I assume as background the change of S15 Observable Entity to
superclass of E5 Event, S10 Material Substantial, by Issue 531

Change S21 Measurement to superclass of E16 Measurement.

Change O24 measured (was measured by) to superproperty of P39
measured (was measured by).

Confirm! O16 observed value (value was observed by) to be
superproperty of P40 observed dimension (was observed in). It is no
more inconsistent.

Declare O12 to be identical with P43 for E18 Physical Thing, which
is the intersection of E70 Thing and S15 Observable Entity.

O9 observed property type (property type was observed by) :
subproperty of P177 assigned property of type (is type of property
assigned)

This relatively conservative readjustment appears to be the best way
to detangle the issues 531 and 388 (Position Measurement)

Please check!

Best,

Martin

-- 


  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




--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University

___
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

[Crm-sig] Issue 274: archetypical sounds

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

My homework for this issue was to check for cases of integration for 
sound in sound arts. I spoke with a professor of sound art in UAL and 
from the examples we discussed it appears that there are very few 
collections systematically cataloguing sound art and they hardly 
document anything else apart from title and artist. We could not find 
any projects around integration of such collections. This does not mean 
that there is no desire for integration from the academic perpsective, 
but I could not identify any domain experts working towards that direction.


All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] Issue 493: example templates

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

With Martin's contribution I am sending the updated homework for the 
example templates. You can find it here:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtZBSx5ZCOQ5ntFUf34TY-_aeR4OIrJY/view?usp=sharing

and here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S6ZAy7Y3TO2ndNtJNkf-NrFeMpVNnXAj/view?usp=sharing

All the best,

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

Re: [Crm-sig] HW 496 - Recommending Types

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

To follow up with this, and with the usual apologies for potentially 
misunderstanding the objective of the issue, I have done a quick scan of 
the CRM document to identify where these recommendations for types are 
done. Some are rather implicit but may be worth considering:


* E4: type of period
* E10: type of transfer of custody
* E15: type of identifier assignment
* E34: type of alphabet
* E56: type of language
* E57: type of material
* E58: type of unit
* E90 / P3.1: type of encoding

All the best,

Thanasis

On 08/06/2021 20:34, Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear Robert

dealing with vocabularies, we noticed (in ARIADNE) that named time periods may 
have some ambiguity as the same name may refer to different time spans 
depending on the location. It is a well-known fact firstly evidenced in the 
ARENA project with an interesting comparative diagram among several EU 
countries.
This is more evident in archaeology, where e.g. "Iron Age” has a different 
meaning in Ireland and in Italy. I use to make a joke on this, telling the story of 
a time traveller who travelled in the year 50 AD from Roman Age back to Iron Age, 
while he simply went from Ronan Gaul (then in the Roman Age) to Ireland, which was 
never invaded by Romans and at the time was still in its Iron Age.

I think that this may be also relevant to Art, for example a “Renaissance 
painting” is dated to rather different time periods according to its provenance.

The solution we found to the issue is TeriodO https://perio.do/en/ a gazetteer 
of periods which may assign different time spans to the same name according to 
location. If this is interesting I can provide further details on how we 
successfully managed the issue.

regards

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 8 giu 2021, alle ore 19:04, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig 
 ha scritto:


All,

I think my part of the homework for #496 is to describe the Linked Art 
requirements, process and decisions.

First - Linked Art is conceived of as an application profile for art-related 
descriptions that uses CRM as its core ontology. It selects as minimal as 
possible a subset of the classes and relationships needed to fulfil the use 
cases. It draws mostly from CRM base, with a few select terms from sci and dig. 
There is also a Linked Art extension that defines a small number of terms that 
aren't available in any other extension (but typically align with the direction 
that soc is taking). You can see Linked Art's documentations here: 
https://linked.art/


We also need to select vocabulary to use with P2_has_type and rely heavily on 
the Getty AAT thesaurus. We divide the vocabulary into three conditional, 
disjoint buckets:
   * Terms that MUST be used for the description to be able to be understood.
   * Terms that SHOULD be used for the description to be easily interoperable 
across institutions
   * Terms that MAY be used, as assistance to the community rather than 
requiring them to look them up independently

We try to keep the MUST bucket as small as possible, and based on cross-domain 
and universal use cases. Examples include:
   * Primary Name (A classification on an appellation that it is the "main" 
name of the entity) vs Display Name (classification on appellation that it is the human 
readable representation of an entity like a TimeSpan)
   * Activity Classifications: We need to distinguish Provenance, Publishing, 
Promise and Exhibitions as having particular recommended structures.
   * Meta types: We don't require any particular types for even things like Painting, but 
we do require types on those types so we know what sort of thing they are. For example, 
there is an "object type" which is required on the object's type. Meta types 
include object type, nationality, culture, gender, statement type, color, shape. Example:

E22 (the painting) p2_has_type E55 (painting) .  <-- painting is recommended
E55 (painting) p2_has_type  (type of work) .  <-- type of work 
is required

Now we can slot anything in to the "painting" slot and know that it's the type 
of the work rather than some other classification... like shape or color.

Thus we also require aat:300191751 for permanent transfers of custody or 
location, and aat:300221270 for temporary transfers of custody or location, per 
the recent decision to not add has_permanent_custodian to manage it at the 
property level.

The SHOULD bucket is on the order of 100 terms for common requirements, but 
ones that would reduce the ability to easily compare across institutions' 
datasets, rather than ones that would make the data almost useless if they 
weren't present.  These are things like the common types of statement about an 
entity, the common types of Place, Group, or Object. Also the types of 
co

[Crm-sig] Issue 419: Activity plans

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

During discussions on the future of activity plans it appears that we 
have 3 options:


1) Activity plans to remain as part of CRMsoc. This makes sense since 
obeying laws and receiving penalties take place in societies and such 
things appear to match the model for activity plans. However, they are 
not central to the current CRMsoc discourse.


2) Activity plans to move to CRMbase. This makes sense given that 
Purchase is in core and there is an increasing amount of interest in 
business transactions, but again perhaps not central enough to the 
CRMbase focus.


3) Activity plans to become its own extension. This makes sense as it is 
a construct focussing on possible future events rather than past events 
mainly concerning the CRM and its extensions otherwise. Also it being a 
separate extension could create a space for business transactions.


I support option 3 and I would like us to discuss this at the next SIG 
meeting and decide. I am happy to act as the maintainer of such an 
extension.


All the best,

Thanasis

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

[Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

[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...')

*
*

*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 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 <#_toc9568> measured (was measured by): E1 <#_toc7281> CRM Entity

P40 <#_toc9585> observed dimension (was observed in): E54 <#_toc8144> 
Dimension



*To:*


Subclass of:

E13 <#_toc7577> Attribute Assignment

Scope note:

This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties 
that can be determined by a systematic, objective procedure of direct 
observation of particular states of physical reality.


An instanc

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue:530 Bias in the CRM

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Indeed the intention is to focus on ontological level for the CRM and 
not to expand to data structures, schemas etc. The issue label does not 
represent the issue exactly, but it can act as a reminder. I will add 
the reference to the library.


T.

On 09/03/2021 06:58, Nicola Carboni wrote:

Dear Thanasis, all,

I would be happy to join the discussion. Another useful reading other 
than the already cited ones, is "Cataloguing Culture: Legacies of 
Colonialism in Museum Documentation” 
<https://www.ubcpress.ca/cataloguing-culture> by Hannah Turner.


Regarding the name and the scope of the issue: should we focus on data 
structure (I see the title of the issue is "bias in data structure") or 
specifically on ontologies and CRM?
While I do very much believe that data structure is an enormously 
important topic to discuss, it is an extremely large subject, and entail 
a larger series of problems which do derive from the informational 
foundation, the concept of structure itself, the recorded information, 
as well as disciplinary inheritance in the chosen subject matter.


I second rob proposing to focus on the problem of the ontology and the 
process of documentation/development. I would add that we should include 
some point about CRM as system of thought as well as the problem of 
formalisation.


* Implementations and Instances of the Ontology
-- I think these are useful as second-order evidence, but that we
should not be too involved or prescriptive.

I would include the topic, as to make clear the diversity in 
implementation (use of terminological systems as well as the use of the 
concept of controlled terminology itself), avoiding indeed the 
prescriptive stance.


Best,

Nicola

P.s. Great initiative :-)

On 8 Mar 2021, at 21:33, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:

Thank you Erin. We are using Zotero already for the CRM so this is a
good idea. I can check if a new folder can be created for issue 530.

T.


On 08/03/2021 19:01, Erin Canning wrote:

I would also like to be involved in this discussion, please! I
too have a reading list on the subject that I would be happy to
share; I have been meaning to pull everything into a Zotero
library and this is a good excuse to do so. For a single article
to start things off, I would recommend Miriam Posner's "What's
Next: The Radical, Unrealized Potential of the Digital
Humanities"

<https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/a22aca14-0eb0-4cc6-a622-6fee9428a357

<https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/a22aca14-0eb0-4cc6-a622-6fee9428a357>>
as an interesting read.

Best,
Erin


Erin Canning

canni...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:canni...@uoguelph.ca
<mailto:canni...@uoguelph.ca>>
Ontology Systems Analyst, LINCS
https://lincsproject.ca/
<https://lincsproject.ca/><https://lincsproject.ca/
<https://lincsproject.ca/>>


--------
*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of
Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
*Sent:* March 8, 2021 12:52 PM
*To:* crm-sig 
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Issue:530 Bias in the CRM
EXTERNAL EMAIL:

Fantastic! Thank you for sharing and you are first in the list.

For the rest in list and if you did not attend today's sessions,
following discussion for issue 530, a working group is being
formed to
discuss bias in the CRM. Please let me know if you wish to
contribute to
the discussion.

All the best,

Thanasis

On 08/03/2021 17:17, Anaïs Guillem wrote:

Dear Thanasis, all,
Some digital humanists work and publish on this question of
bias in
digital humanities: here is an example of very a propos
publication:


https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425

<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425>


<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425

<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425>>


<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425

<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425>


<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425

<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425>>>

I gathered myself bibliography about decolonizing knowledge and
methodology especi

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue:530 Bias in the CRM

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Thank you Erin. We are using Zotero already for the CRM so this is a 
good idea. I can check if a new folder can be created for issue 530.


T.


On 08/03/2021 19:01, Erin Canning wrote:
I would also like to be involved in this discussion, please! I too have 
a reading list on the subject that I would be happy to share; I have 
been meaning to pull everything into a Zotero library and this is a good 
excuse to do so. For a single article to start things off, I would 
recommend Miriam Posner's "What's Next: The Radical, Unrealized 
Potential of the Digital Humanities" 
<https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/a22aca14-0eb0-4cc6-a622-6fee9428a357> 
as an interesting read.


Best,
Erin


Erin Canning

canni...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:canni...@uoguelph.ca>
Ontology Systems Analyst, LINCS
https://lincsproject.ca/<https://lincsproject.ca/>


----
*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Athanasios 
Velios via Crm-sig 

*Sent:* March 8, 2021 12:52 PM
*To:* crm-sig 
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Issue:530 Bias in the CRM
EXTERNAL EMAIL:

Fantastic! Thank you for sharing and you are first in the list.

For the rest in list and if you did not attend today's sessions,
following discussion for issue 530, a working group is being formed to
discuss bias in the CRM. Please let me know if you wish to contribute to
the discussion.

All the best,

Thanasis

On 08/03/2021 17:17, Anaïs Guillem wrote:

Dear Thanasis, all,
Some digital humanists work and publish on this question of bias in
digital humanities: here is an example of very a propos publication:

https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425 

<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425>
<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425 

<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425>>


I gathered myself bibliography about decolonizing knowledge and
methodology especially in digital project. I could join the discussion
of your working group if you want.
Cheers,
Anais

Le mer. 3 mars 2021 à 14:58, Athanasios Velios mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>>> a écrit :

 Dear all,

 In version 7.1 a short but important sentence has been added at the end
 of the scope section:

 "Discussions on the types of bias present in the CIDOC CRM are in
 progress within the CIDOC CRM community."

 Issue 530 is used to track the discussions here:

http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-530-bias-in-data-structure 

<http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-530-bias-in-data-structure>
 <http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-530-bias-in-data-structure 

<http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-530-bias-in-data-structure>>


 It is important to engage in this discussion so that we first understand
 the issues around bias and privileged positions and then how these may
 or may not impact the development of the model.

 We will then be more confident in making a more complete statement is
 future versions. Issue 530 is scheduled to be discussed at the community
 session of the forthcoming meeting.

 Looking forward to it.

 All the best,

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

<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
 <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig 

<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>>




--
Anaïs Guillem
Architect-archaeologist
+33 630005089

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig 
<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] Issue:530 Bias in the CRM

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Fantastic! Thank you for sharing and you are first in the list.

For the rest in list and if you did not attend today's sessions, 
following discussion for issue 530, a working group is being formed to 
discuss bias in the CRM. Please let me know if you wish to contribute to 
the discussion.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 08/03/2021 17:17, Anaïs Guillem wrote:

Dear Thanasis, all,
Some digital humanists work and publish on this question of bias in 
digital humanities: here is an example of very a propos publication:


https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425 
<https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425>


I gathered myself bibliography about decolonizing knowledge and 
methodology especially in digital project. I could join the discussion 
of your working group if you want.

Cheers,
Anais

Le mer. 3 mars 2021 à 14:58, Athanasios Velios <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>> a écrit :


Dear all,

In version 7.1 a short but important sentence has been added at the end
of the scope section:

"Discussions on the types of bias present in the CIDOC CRM are in
progress within the CIDOC CRM community."

Issue 530 is used to track the discussions here:

http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-530-bias-in-data-structure
<http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-530-bias-in-data-structure>

It is important to engage in this discussion so that we first understand
the issues around bias and privileged positions and then how these may
or may not impact the development of the model.

We will then be more confident in making a more complete statement is
future versions. Issue 530 is scheduled to be discussed at the community
session of the forthcoming meeting.

Looking forward to it.

All the best,

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



--
Anaïs Guillem
Architect-archaeologist
+33 630005089

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

[Crm-sig] Bias in the CRM

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

In version 7.1 a short but important sentence has been added at the end
of the scope section:

"Discussions on the types of bias present in the CIDOC CRM are in
progress within the CIDOC CRM community."

Issue 530 is used to track the discussions here:

http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-530-bias-in-data-structure

It is important to engage in this discussion so that we first understand
the issues around bias and privileged positions and then how these may
or may not impact the development of the model.

We will then be more confident in making a more complete statement is
future versions. Issue 530 is scheduled to be discussed at the community
session of the forthcoming meeting.

Looking forward to it.

All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] Issue 332: new class and properties for sample splitting

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

During the last SIG I was asked to reformulate some homework around 
splitting samples for CRMsci. This included creating a new class and two 
new properties (one of them from the revised homework). Please find this 
new homework attached here.


All the best,

Thanasis


sample-splitting-class-and-properties.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document


sample-splitting-class-and-properties.odt
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Issue 516: Examples of E10 Transfer of Custody

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

As part of the homework for issue 516 I was meant to look for the 
reference for the example about the National Gallery under E10 Transfer 
of Custody and associated proprties. Joe Padfield has kindly done some 
detective work on the example but there is no proper reference for it. 
There is a passing reference on a couple of webpages from an exhibition 
in 2013 (e.g. 
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/research/meaning-of-making/vermeer-and-technique/drying-and-paint-defects) 
but nowhere near what is needed.


The example may have been fictitious in the first place, or the 
reference is lost, or we are simply talking about another National Gallery.


In any case, I think George is tasked with finding a different example 
from the Getty.


All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] New PhD studentship - conservation, uncertainty and the CRM

[Athanasios Velios]

ttps://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/equality-and-diversity-policy.pdf


Please note that interviews will be held online via Microsoft Teams.

Further details: https://www.ligatus.org.uk/node/810

Application: https://www.arts.ac.uk/research/phd-and-mphil-degrees

For questions please contact Dr Athanasios Velios: a.vel...@arts.ac.uk




--
Dr. Athanasios Velios
Reader in Documentation
Ligatus
University of the Arts London

Follow Linked Conservation Data: https://www.ligatus.org.uk/lcd/
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Issue 503 HW: New examples for E13 Attribute Assignment (and E14 Condition Assessment)

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

Some HW for issue 503 to be discussed next week. This was to produce new 
examples for E13 Attribute Assignment. After discussion with Martin, it 
looks like some of them are better suited for E14 Condition Assessment.


All the best,

Thanasis


   E13 Attribute Assignment

 *

   the examination of MS Sinai Greek 418 by Nicholas Pickwoad in
   November 2003 (E13) (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


   P140 assigned attribute to

 *

   the examination (E13) of MS Sinai Greek 418 /assigned attribute
   to/MS Sinai Greek 418 (E22) (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


   P141 assigned

 *

   the examination (E13) of MS Sinai Greek 418 /assigned/unsupported
   (E55) (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


   P177 assigned property type

 *

   the examination (E13) of MS Sinai Greek 418 /assigned property
   type/binding structure type (E55) (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)

 *

   the condition assessment (E14) of the endband cores of MS Sinai
   Greek 418 /assigned property type/damage (E55) (Honey and Pickwoad,
   2010)

 *

   the condition assessment (E14) of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418
   /assigned property type/quality (E55) (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


   E14 Condition Assessment

 *

   the condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418
   by Nicholas Pickwoad in November 2003 (E14) (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)

 *

   the condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 by
   Nicholas Pickwoad in November 2003 (E14) (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


   P34 concerned

 *

   the condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E14)
   /concerned/the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E22) (Honey and
   Pickwoad, 2010)

 *

   the condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418
   (E14) /concerned/the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E22)
   (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)


   P35 has identified

 *

   the condition assessment of the cover of MS Sinai Greek 418 (E13)
   /has identified/a condition state (E3) which /has type/fine (E55)
   (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)

 *

   the condition assessment of the endband cores of MS Sinai Greek 418
   (E14) /has identified/a condition state (E3) which /has type/broken
   (E55) (Honey and Pickwoad, 2010)



   Works cited

Honey, A. and Pickwoad, N. (2010) ‘Learning from the Past: Using 
Original Techniques to Conserve a Twelfth-Century Illuminated Manuscript 
and Its Sixteenth-Century Greek-Style Binding at the Monastery of St 
Catherine, Sinai’, /Studies in Conservation/, 55(sup2), pp. 56–61. 
doi:_10.1179/sic.2010.55.Supplement-2.56_ 
.




e11-attribute-assignment-new-examples-20201018.odt
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Measurements and Dimensions

[Athanasios Velios]

Good point, but it seems to me that being able to measure a Place is 
pretty important. Otherwise we have to measure through the physical 
object/site reference or the declarative space as part of a conceptual 
thing.


Thanasis



On 09/09/2020 13:39, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Dear all,

I believe that there is an inconsistency in the model for measurements 
and dimensions.


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.


I would also be okay with the other direction by changing the domain of 
P43 has dimension to be E1 CRM Entity, however that seems like a much 
more significant change, and would result in quite strange side effects 
such as Dimensions having Dimensions.


Rob

--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University

___
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

[Crm-sig] Examples template

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

I have made a few changes to the examples template based on the 
discussions from the last meeting. There are still a couple of pending 
issues but I think we should discuss those at the end of the meeting 
tomorrow if there is time:


* use of quotes
* use of conjunctions in examples featuring multiple properties
* new issue to update examples in CRMcore to match those in the template

Homework uploaded on Google Drive:

docx: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rzGdUgSlanjEnvFcVdnFqCkChMUnDkDG
odt: https://drive.google.com/open?id=16q5A7TUIXVPtXE4xs_YS0yk0kmOxkVEJ

All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] New Job: Linked Conservation Data

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

Please see the link to a new post for working with the Linked 
Conservation Data project, hopefully employing all the good work that 
has come out of the SIG and relevant projects.


https://ual.tal.net/vx/appcentre-1/brand-1/candidate/so/pm/6/pl/1/opp/6085-Post-Doctoral-Research-Fellow-Linked-Conservation-Data-Phase-2/en-GB

All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] New issue: broaden scope of P126 (from issue 436)

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

In the last SIG meeting I was asked to propose a revision to P126 in 
order to broaden its scope from E11 Modification to E7 Activity. The 
rationale for this is that there are activities which employ materials 
and which do not result in a modification. For example in this paper 
from the conservation domain:


Kate Fulcher (2017) An investigation of the use of cellulose-based 
materials to gap-fill wooden objects, Studies in Conservation, 62:4, 
210-222, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2015.1109294


An activity (E7) is taking place where water (E57) is applied to a 
sample of a fill (i.e. a component made by the conservator to fill a 
hole in an object). The sample is made of Paraloid® B-72 BC1000 and 
water has no effect on it. Therefore the activity is not a modification.


Old definition:

P126 employed (was employed in)
Domain: E11 Modification
Range: E57 Material
Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n)
Scope note:
This property identifies E57 Material employed in an E11 Modification.
The E57 Material used during the E11 Modification does not necessarily 
become incorporated into the E24 Physical Man-Made Thing that forms the 
subject of the E11 Modification.

Examples:
the repairing of the Queen Mary (E11) employed Steel (E57)
distilled water (E57) was employed in the restoration of the Sistine 
Chapel (E11)

In First Order Logic:
P126(x,y) ⊃ E11(x)
P126(x,y) ⊃ E57(y)

New definition

P126 employed (was employed in)
Domain: E7 Activity
Range: E57 Material
Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n)
Scope note:
This property identifies E57 Material employed in an E7 Activity.
Physical evidence of the use of E57 Material may not be visible on any 
E18 Physical Thing that may have been used during the E7 Activity.

Examples:
the repairing of the Queen Mary (E11) employed Steel (E57)
distilled water (E57) was employed in the restoration of the Sistine 
Chapel (E11)

In First Order Logic:
P126(x,y) ⊃ E7(x)
P126(x,y) ⊃ E57(y)

All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] Issue 332 homework: split sample

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

In the last meeting I was asked to revise the scope note for O27 split 
and provide a more specific example for it. Please consider these:


Old scope note

This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with an 
instance of S13 Sample that was removed during this activity. The 
resulting S13 Sample maintains the characteristic qualities of the the 
instance of S10 Material Substantial that the sample was taken from. 
This property should be used to model cases when a homogenous sample is 
split into multiple ones.



Revised scope note

This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with an 
instance of S13 Sample that was removed during this activity. The 
resulting S13 Sample maintains the characteristic qualities of the 
instance of S10 Material Substantial (i.e. the original sample) that the 
new sample was taken from. This supports reasoning that the new sample 
retains/preserves the characteristic qualities of the original sample. 
Any observations of these qualities made on the new sample also apply to 
the original one. This property should be used to model cases when a 
homogenous sample is split into multiple ones.


New example (with recommended introduction):

In 2000, Godfrey et al. [1] took a sample from a section of the tusk 
fragment GT993 which was originally found in the ship-wreck of Vergulde 
Draeck in Western Australia. This sample was homogenous (ground to fine 
powder). Part of the sample was then removed for elemental analysis 
using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). 
Another part was removed for carbon/nitrogen analysis using a LECO analyser.


The activity (S2) of removing a part from the sample (S13), which was 
originally taken from the tusk fragment GT993 by Godfrey et al. in 2000, 
*split* the sample to create a new one (S13) for ICP-AES analysis in 
order to reveal the composition of the original sample.


[1]  I.M. Godfrey, E.L. Ghisalberti, E.W. Beng, L.T. Byrne & G.W. 
Richardson (2002) The Analysis of Ivory from a Marine Environment, 
Studies in Conservation, 47:1, 29-45, DOI: 10.1179/sic.2002.47.1.29



All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] Issue 425: Example for I11 Situation

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all, Steve,

In the last meeting I was asked to provide an example for I11 Situation 
from the domain of conservation. I am proposing this one:


"The persistence of the value of the pH (E55) for sample XIV (S13) 
during the period of the pH measurement (E52), which followed after one 
month from the application of Ca(OH)2 dispersion to the sample."1


[1] Rodorico Giorgi, Luigi Dei, Claudius Schettino & Piero Baglioni 
(2002) A NEW METHOD FOR PAPER DEACIDIFICATION BASED ON CALCIUM HYDROXIDE 
DISPERSED IN NONAQUEOUS MEDIA, Studies in Conservation, 47:sup3, 69-73, 
DOI: 10.1179/sic.2002.47.s3.014


All the best,

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

[Crm-sig] Use of E3 Condition State

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

Following up an action point from the last SIG meeting, would you be 
able to send me examples of instances of E3 Condition State in your 
systems with a bit of context so that I can understand how it is used?


Please post directly to me and I can summarise for the list.

Thank you.

All the best,

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

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for the scope note of P2 has type (is type of)

[Athanasios Velios]

Apologies, I misread the labels.

YES, without a comment.

T.

On 03/02/2020 09:35, Athanasios Velios wrote:

YES, but I would remove the work "obviously" from the last sentence.

Thanasis

On 31/01/2020 12:46, Bekiari Xrysoula wrote:

Dear All,

Following the decisions of the last sig, we invite you to vote if you 
accept the updated scope note of P2 has type .  The old and the new 
scope notes follow:


=== 



*P2 has type (is type of) *

(old)

Scope note:    This property allows sub typing of CIDOC CRM entities - 
a form of specialisation – through the use of a terminological 
hierarchy, or thesaurus.


The CIDOC CRM is intended to focus on the high-level entities and 
relationships needed to describe data structures. Consequently, it 
does not specialise entities any further than is required for this 
immediate purpose. However, entities in the isA hierarchy of the CIDOC 
CRM may by specialised into any number of sub entities, which can be 
defined in the E55 Type hierarchy. E41 Appellation, for example, may 
be specialised into “e-mail address”, “telephone number”, “post office 
box”, “URL” etc. none of which figures explicitly in the CIDOC CRM 
hierarchy. Subtyping obviously requires consistency between the 
meaning of the terms assigned and the more general intent of the 
CIDOC-CRM entity in question.


(New)

Scope note:    This property allows sub typing of CIDOC CRM entities - 
a form of specialisation – through the use of a terminological 
hierarchy, or thesaurus.


The CIDOC CRM is intended to focus on the high-level entities and 
relationships needed to describe data structures. Consequently, it 
does not specialise entities any further than is required for this 
immediate purpose. However, entities in the isA hierarchy of the CIDOC 
CRM may by specialised into any number of sub entities, which can be 
defined in the E55 Type hierarchy. E41 Appellation, for example, may 
be specialised into “e-mail address”, “telephone number”, “post office 
box”, “URL” etc. none of which figures explicitly in the CIDOC CRM 
hierarchy.
A comprehensive explanation about refining CIDOC CRM concepts by E55 
Type is given in the section “About Types” in the section on “Specific 
Modelling Constructs” of this document.



PLEASE VOTE :

YES for accepting,

NO for not accepting,

by Feb. 6  2020.

all the best

Chryssoula


--
---
Chryssoula Bekiari
Research and Development Engineer

Center for Cultural Informatics / Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)

N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR-700 13 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Phone: +30 2810 391631, Fax: +30 2810 391638, Skype: xrysmp
E-mail:beki...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/index_main.php?l=e&c=231
 




___
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

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

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for the scope note of P2 has type (is type of)

[Athanasios Velios]

YES, but I would remove the work "obviously" from the last sentence.

Thanasis

On 31/01/2020 12:46, Bekiari Xrysoula wrote:

Dear All,

Following the decisions of the last sig, we invite you to vote if you 
accept the updated scope note of P2 has type .  The old and the new 
scope notes follow:


===

*P2 has type (is type of) *

(old)

Scope note:    This property allows sub typing of CIDOC CRM entities - a 
form of specialisation – through the use of a terminological hierarchy, 
or thesaurus.


The CIDOC CRM is intended to focus on the high-level entities and 
relationships needed to describe data structures. Consequently, it does 
not specialise entities any further than is required for this immediate 
purpose. However, entities in the isA hierarchy of the CIDOC CRM may by 
specialised into any number of sub entities, which can be defined in the 
E55 Type hierarchy. E41 Appellation, for example, may be specialised 
into “e-mail address”, “telephone number”, “post office box”, “URL” etc. 
none of which figures explicitly in the CIDOC CRM hierarchy. Subtyping 
obviously requires consistency between the meaning of the terms assigned 
and the more general intent of the CIDOC-CRM entity in question.


(New)

Scope note:    This property allows sub typing of CIDOC CRM entities - a 
form of specialisation – through the use of a terminological hierarchy, 
or thesaurus.


The CIDOC CRM is intended to focus on the high-level entities and 
relationships needed to describe data structures. Consequently, it does 
not specialise entities any further than is required for this immediate 
purpose. However, entities in the isA hierarchy of the CIDOC CRM may by 
specialised into any number of sub entities, which can be defined in the 
E55 Type hierarchy. E41 Appellation, for example, may be specialised 
into “e-mail address”, “telephone number”, “post office box”, “URL” etc. 
none of which figures explicitly in the CIDOC CRM hierarchy.
A comprehensive explanation about refining CIDOC CRM concepts by E55 
Type is given in the section “About Types” in the section on “Specific 
Modelling Constructs” of this document.



PLEASE VOTE :

YES for accepting,

NO for not accepting,

by Feb. 6  2020.

all the best

Chryssoula


--
---
Chryssoula Bekiari
Research and Development Engineer

Center for Cultural Informatics / Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)

N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR-700 13 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Phone: +30 2810 391631, Fax: +30 2810 391638, Skype: xrysmp
E-mail:beki...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/index_main.php?l=e&c=231



___
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] CIDOC CRM URI management

[Athanasios Velios]

Yes, if we have different URIs for each version of E5 Event, then this 
will complicate matters during implementation in local systems. If one 
wants to work out the difference in reasoning rules across the versions 
then they would need to refer to the whole document not each individual 
class. So yes to versions for the document URIs but no to versions for 
the individual class URIs.


T.

On 17/01/2020 13:05, George Bruseker wrote:



 >      > I will point out that on the CRM site, there is also an entire
 >      > architecture wherein each version has its own overall
presentation:
 >      > e.g.: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-6.2.1
 >
 >     I think this should be maintained but not used as URIs for
classes.
 >
 >
 > Why would you argue against using it as the resolving point for
 > individual classes?

Because it includes versions. These are necessary when working across
different versions but I do not think versions are needed for classes.


But is your objection to showing the data in the form that you see when 
you click this link (ie not a large html text and a pointer to the 
anchor) or to showing a version?


I like the way that the link above displays an individual class and the 
functionality it gives to actually use the ontology. I don't know if it 
breaks good practice though.


Re displaying a version, don't you always have to display a version? 
Even if you are displaying current, it is actually just the last 
official version.



 > Currently this is not supported at all, correct? I mean you
always point
 > at a version. So you would suggest that 'current' should be
'versionless'?

I am suggesting that classes do not need versions at all. Doing
reasoning on a per class and per version basis would be bad practice,
no? One would expect that the whole RDF/OWL representation would be
used
for reasoning. I think class URIs are only used as identifiers. This
also avoids the problem of ensuring correct older versions for
deprecated classes.


I think from a provenance point of view, given that the ontology is 
changing if one knew the version it could help one interpret the 
information in the future. I mean that if you made your data under 
version 4 when the intension of class x was of a certain size and now we 
widened it, then perhaps it affects how you used the ontology. I imagine 
this is a pretty sci fi scenario right now and nobody has this use case, 
but thinking of how things could shape up in a future world, I think it 
would be relevant. Actually even thinking about conversations in 
LinkedArt people get confused between versions. Why didn't you use 
property x? Well I was looking at version x and in that version class y 
doesn't have property x.


Anyhow if we had a workflow in which the structured data for classes and 
properties were edited first and from that the different products (doc, 
rdf, owl etc.) were generated then generating the versioned version 
would not be more overheard. Think it's a question of order of 
production of the documents.




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

[Crm-sig] agents of deterioration

[Athanasios Velios]

Hello,

During the discussions at the Linked Conservation Data consortium a 
question has come up:


I have a metal sculpture on the seafront which is battered by the sea 
for decades. The production of the corrosion layer is a S17 Physical 
Genesis. In conservation documentation I would like to express the cause 
of that genesis (the sea water hitting the sculpture). "O13 triggers" is 
the best option so far, but the label and examples indicate a sequence 
of events, i.e. one is complete and the next one begins. Is this the 
intension? If not, I would like to add a sentence to clarify that the 
two events can be considered as happening at the same time (and also 
avoid arguments around scale of events).


All the best,

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

Re: [Crm-sig] CIDOC CRM URI management

[Athanasios Velios]

My underlying assumption would be that the default thing served up would 
be html, but you could reach the other representation consistently 
through adding an appropriate ending or whatever would be most 
suitable... but that people looking at the html should have a shiny red 
button type clue that there is another way to retrieve the info which is 
for example as owl.


Yes, I agree.


 > I will point out that on the CRM site, there is also an entire
 > architecture wherein each version has its own overall presentation:
 > e.g.: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-6.2.1

I think this should be maintained but not used as URIs for classes.


Why would you argue against using it as the resolving point for 
individual classes?


Because it includes versions. These are necessary when working across 
different versions but I do not think versions are needed for classes.


Currently this is not supported at all, correct? I mean you always point 
at a version. So you would suggest that 'current' should be 'versionless'?


I am suggesting that classes do not need versions at all. Doing 
reasoning on a per class and per version basis would be bad practice, 
no? One would expect that the whole RDF/OWL representation would be used 
for reasoning. I think class URIs are only used as identifiers. This 
also avoids the problem of ensuring correct older versions for 
deprecated classes.




How I understood Erlangen to work is that it just makes the versionless 
URI redirect to the current. So I thought the idea would be that 
'current' resolves to the present official (whatever the present 
official means). If a class has been deprecated then I guess it would 
have to revert to the last official in which it had existed?



All the best,

Thanasis


___
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] CIDOC CRM URI management

[Athanasios Velios]

For the appearance/presentation of the whole ontology, it is an html 
representation of the main document that we create. This seems fine. 
Would it be useful to be able to provide links explicitly at the top of 
this document to click over to encodings? This way somehow we can better 
consolidate and direct people to the RDF and the Erlangen OWL?


Links would certainly be useful but the web server's content negotiation 
mechanism should be enough to deliver the right format to the client, is 
this what you mean?


I will point out that on the CRM site, there is also an entire 
architecture wherein each version has its own overall presentation: 
e.g.: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-6.2.1


I think this should be maintained but not used as URIs for classes.


Finally to Thanasis' point.

"Resolving the class URI should return all versions of the class."

Currently we certainly don't do that. It definitely would not / could 
not happen based on our doc/html presentation of the ontology. With the 
database version I pointed to above, I suppose it would be relatively 
straightforward to have the older versions of a class you are looking at 
listed below as links. I guess it would be a specialist user who would 
care about this (not to put the idea down, just to say).


Yes I thought it should be relatively easy to do through a Drupal View. 
The point is that if there are no versions on the class URI, the user 
should be able to read about any version of the class given that they 
may be coming from a database using an earlier version than the current one.


All the best,

Thanasis


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

Re: [Crm-sig] CIDOC CRM URI management

[Athanasios Velios]

I agree with Detlev's proposal. Also, I believe that versions should not 
be included in the class URIs. These are not normally used to retrieve 
reasoning rules but only to identify classes, right? Resolving the class 
URI should return all versions of the class.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 16/01/2020 19:28, Detlev Balzer wrote:

Martin Doerr  hat am 16. Januar 2020 um 13:27 geschrieben:

(...)
At FORTH we will implement anything that is regarded good practice, and
does not create a manual overhead we cannot manage.


For formal specifications such as ontologies, there is a widely adopted pattern 
for change management which goes like this:

http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/ always resolves to the latest version, while

http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/{version}/ always resolves to the particular 
{version} given in the URI.

There can be any number of versions, and the latest one is both referenced 
through the un-versioned namespace and through the one with the most recent 
version number (or publication date, if that is used for versioning).

Alternatively, the most recent version could be labelled explicitly as the 
current one, e.g. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/current/

Application developers must then decide what kind of stability they prefer: 
stability of the namespace URI, or stability of the content retrieved from a 
URI. Evidently, one cannot have both.

Maintenance effort for this pattern is minimal: Just publish each new version 
under its versioned namespace and then, any time another version comes out, 
adjust the non-versioned namespace so that it will resolve to the most recent 
version. Most modern Web frameworks have a URL routing facility which makes 
this fairly easy.

I should not forget to say that LOD best practice also demands that URIs 
support content negotiation, as assumed throughout all recommendations in the 
http://linkeddatabook.com/
  
Best,

Detlev
___
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] ISSUE P114-P120 VOTE

[Athanasios Velios]

I vote YES as well.

Thanasis

On 12/01/2020 10:13, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear All,

If you agree that

"the following Allen's temporal relations should be deprecated in the 
CRMbase and reappear in CRMarcheo:


P114 is equal in time to
P115 finishes (is finished by)
P116 starts (is started by)
P117 occurs during (includes)
P118 overlaps in time with (is overlapped in time by)
P119 meets in time with (is met in time by)
P120 occurs before (occurs after)"
PLEASE VOTE "YES"
otherwise "NO"
Best,
Martin

On 1/12/2020 10:29 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:

Dear all,
In the October 2019 meeting in Iraklio, we did a general cleanup of 
the CRM-document based on Martin's and my general review. It was a 
general understanding that the  SIG had decided that the following 
temporal relations should be deprecated in the CRMbase and reappear in 
CRMarcheo:

P114 is equal in time to
P115 finishes (is finished by)
P116 starts (is started by)
P117 occurs during (includes)
P118 overlaps in time with (is overlapped in time by)
P119 meets in time with (is met in time by)
P120 occurs before (occurs after)

However, I cannot find any traces of such a decision neither in the 
amendment part, in the minutes the previous two years nor in the list 
of issues.


I suggest that this decision could be done by email vote.

Best,
Christian-Emil


​



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



--

  Dr. Martin Doerr
   
  Honorary Head of the

  Center for Cultural Informatics
  
  Information Systems Laboratory

  Institute of Computer Science
  Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
   
  N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,

  GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
  
  Vox:+30(2810)391625
  Email:mar...@ics.forth.gr   
  Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl  



___
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

[Crm-sig] Recording absence

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

Following the Linked Conservation Data workshop and the last SIG in 
Crete I am summarising the problem of documenting non-existence.


An example of non-existence is: a book cover (a particular) without 
tooled decoration (a type).


Options for encoding:

1) As discussed here: 
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/2012-November/001873.html , 
we could have a new E55 Type "books without decoration". This is a good 
solution but the problem is that we will need an unmanageable number of 
composite thesaurus terms to cover all possibilities, e.g. things 
without a feature, or types of events which did not happen etc.


2) In past SIGs we have mentioned negative properties. This is also a 
good solution but not quite in scope. A negative property requires 
particulars for domain and range. So I can say that:


cover(E22 Man-Made Object) → NOT P56 bears feature → tooled 
decoration(E25 Man-Made Feature)


This would mean that the specific book does not carry the specific 
decoration. But I want to say that the specific book does not carry any 
decoration.


3) So I pestered Carlo for a few days and he says:

"To express negative information in an ontology, it is recommended to 
use specific axioms. For example, to state that certain books have no 
decorations the axiom would require to create a special class for those 
books and to make that class a sub-class of the class expression 
'individuals with less than 1 decorations'. This will require a class 
and an axiom to be created for each type of negative information to be 
expressed. But it has the advantage of using a standard OWL 2 DL 
inference engine to reason about that negative knowledge, both for 
maintaining consistency and for query answering."


So what Carlo thinks is that option 1 is reasonable and in fact instead 
of using simply a thesaurus, one should elevate these definitions to 
ontology classes and axioms.


I would be interested to hear views from the list, as I am not sure how 
to model such statements. Those of you who have looked at this in the 
past, do you get a sense of the scale for negation statements?


Thank you.

Thanasis

P.S. A parallel thought which did not capture Carlo's imagination was a 
"typed negative property", i.e. create new negative properties with E55 
as range as in:


cover(E22 Man-Made Object) → NOT P56 bears feature of type → tooled 
decoration(E55 Type)


but I am not sure how this would translate to logic in an inference engine.
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

[Athanasios Velios]

What Martin describes was my understanding as well at the Linked.Art 
meeting. In response to Rob's notes:


I think that indeed we have the "lot (object)" which is a physical thing 
that is sold and "lot (record)" which is a document talking about the 
"lot (object)". Writing about a physical thing does not make it a 
concept, it creates a new concept. So I think there is no problem there.


The problem is Rob's note 4 which George also mentioned: that the lot 
that someone buys may be a non-material thing and aggregated only for 
the auction. It is likely a conceptual object, so maybe we need 
something like "P148 has component (is component of)" in that case?


If one goes down the "lot" as a subclass route, the two lots (lot 
physical and lot conceptual) should be different classes I think. But I 
can see that increases complexity.


T.

On 21/10/2019 19:56, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear Florian, All,

It is not clear to me why people do not want to use E18 for Aggregates 
that are not intended to grow over time in the sense of a collection. 
The time, how long they are together, does not play a role. The question 
is only, if they are well defined and identified for some time.


For biodiversity scenaria, we have used a concept of Temporary Aggregate 
which exists only within an Activity, such as a catch of plankton and 
counting the species in it.


Since the CRM does not model subclasses without distinct properties, the 
Auction Lot is an E18, and you are free to introduce your own subclass 
for it.


Making E78 any aggregate, we come in conflicts separating it from E18. 
NOTE, that an E18 does not require physical coherence, such as sets of 
chessmen etc. We would then have competing models, if the distinction 
cannot be made clearly.


We have discussed repeatedly, that a useful distinction of 
"non-aggregates" from "aggregates" cannot be made.


Opinions?

Best,

Martin

On 10/21/2019 1:43 PM, Florian Kräutli wrote:

Dear George,

This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note 
of E78 suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there 
is no satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections 
you describe.


However, instead of introducing another class and then having to come 
up with criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' I 
would rather extend the examples under E78 to include other types of 
aggregates.


Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for 
auction lots, as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated 
Holding. The term in the scope note that might stand in the way is 
that the aggregation is said to be assembled "according to a 
particular *collection development plan*". An auction lot is not 
generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but it 
is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that term 
is necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as a 
Collection.


Best,

Florian

On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker > wrote:


Dear all,

At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting 
to model information related to auctions. It happens that during 
auctions, lots (collections or sets of things) are created with the 
intention that things will be sold together. Ie they are aggregates. 
In facing the question of modelling this, we seem to have some options.


1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to 
hold these things together for a day or so and to sell them together


2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended 
modelling aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts.


The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes against 
the intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one 
instantiating a physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for 
E78) for an aggregate that will possibly only ever be together once. 
In fact, since the objects are only put together in the lot for the 
intention of sale, they may not have had to have been physically 
brought together as a physical item ever. In this sense modelling 
them with either E78 or E19 seems to break ontological commitment (ie 
we do not think that these things were ever brought together or 
treated physically as one).


Because Linked.art also has members in the group who represent modern 
art museums, the discussion also comes upon the possibility that 
included in the lot of things sold may be some sort of intellectual 
thing, no physical object at all. Obviously because of its nature, we 
could not bundle a conceptual object with a physical object using 
physical mereology relations. So... modelling difficulty ahoy!


Could we take up this discussion during SIG (or if there is already a 
satisfactory solution overlooked can it be referred to)?


To me it seems to raise the question of the possibility of defining a 
conceptual object class for 'set', although I am 

[Crm-sig] HW Issue 408: Activity plan as temporal validity for rights

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

Part of the homework for 408 was to consider Activity Plan to model the 
temporal validity of rights. Rob and I had some quick thoughts. This was 
in relation to the example of the death of an author + 70 years before 
the work becomes public domain.


Option 1:
Assign two Trigger Event Templates to an Activity Plan, one to describe 
the death event and the other to describe the length of 70 years, with a 
new property putting the two in temporal order.


Option 2:
Have two separate Activity Plans with their respective Trigger Event 
Templates initiating the next Activity Plan or terminating the Right 
Holding. "P148 has component" can be used to express parts of Activity 
Plans (which is a wider issue and is not drawn here).


The use of "P191 had duration" should be discussed in both cases - it is 
unclear whether the property should always apply to observations about 
the past.


Perhaps we can discuss next week.

All the best,

Thanasis


activity-plan-as-rights-temporal-validity-av-gv.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document


activity-plan-as-rights-temporal-validity-rs-gv.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

[Crm-sig] HW Issue 419: scope notes of TET properties

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

I spent a bit of time putting together some scope notes and examples for 
the Trigger Event Template properties (also attached as a document with 
an updated diagram). I forwarded these to Stephen only last week so he 
had not had a chance to review them, but maybe we can do that at the 
meeting next week. FOL statements and Quantification produced by OntoMe.


All the best,

Thanasis


 socP24 specifies material substantial (is specified material
 substantial)

Domain:

socE4 Trigger Event Template 

Range:

S10 Material Substantial 

Quantification:

/0,n:0,n/

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of socExx Trigger Event Template 
with an instance of S10 Material Substantial which the template 
specifies to be used or be present for the planned activity.


Examples:

The disaster plan of the Tate Archives (socE2 Activity Plan) concerns 
the possible event (socE4 Trigger Event Template) which specifies 
(socP24 specifies material substantial) the river Thames (S10 Material 
Substantial / S14 Fluid Body) flooding.


In First Order Logic:

 *

   socP24(x,y) ⊃ socE4(x)

 *

   socP24(x,y) ⊃ S10(y)


 socP23 specifies actor (is specified actor of)

Domain:

socE4 Trigger Event Template 

Range:

E39 Actor 

Quantification:

/0,n:0,n/

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of socExx Trigger Event Template 
with the instance of E39 Actor who is specified by the template to be 
part of the planned activity.


Examples:

The template specifying my wedding (socExx Trigger Event Template), 
specifies (socP23 specifies actor) Rev Glyn Tidwell (E39 Actor) to be 
present to undertake the wedding service.


In First Order Logic:

 *

   socP23(x,y) ⊃ socE4(x)

 *

   socP23(x,y) ⊃ E39(y)


 socP22 specifies time-span (is specified time-span of)

Domain:

socE4 Trigger Event Template 

Range:

E52 Time-Span 

Quantification:

/0,n:0,n/

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of socExx Trigger Event Template 
with the instance of E52 Time-span which is specified by the template as 
the time-span for the planned activity.


Examples:

The template specifying my wedding (socE4 Trigger Event Template), 
specifies (socPxx specifies time-span) the the wedding takes place 
between 14:00 and 23:00 of the 12th of August 2006 (E52 Time-span).


In First Order Logic:

 *

   socP22(x,y) ⊃ socE4(x)

 *

   socP22(x,y) ⊃ E52(y)


 socP21 specifies place (is specified place of)

Domain:

socE4 Trigger Event Template 

Range:

E53 Place 

Quantification:

/0,n:0,n/

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of socExx Trigger Event Template 
with the instance of E53 Place which is specified by the template as the 
place where the planned activity should take place.


Examples:

The template specifying my wedding (socE4 Trigger Event Template), 
specifies (socP21 specifies place) the location of Cardiff Castle (E53 
Place) for the wedding party to take place.


In First Order Logic:

 *

   socP21(x,y) ⊃ socE4(x)

 *

   socP21(x,y) ⊃ E53(y)


 socP19 specifies actor role (is specified actor role of)

Domain:

socE4 Trigger Event Template 

Range:

E55 Type 

Quantification:

/0,n:0,n/

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of socExx Trigger Event Template 
with the E55 Type of the role of an E39 Actor which is specified by the 
template. This property does not require the instance of E39 Actor to be 
specified by socP23 specifies actor (is specified actor of).


Examples:

The template specifying my wedding (socE4 Trigger Event Template) 
specifies (socP19 specifies actor role) that someone acts as a disc 
jokey (E55 Type) to play music for the wedding guests.


In First Order Logic:

 *

   socP19(x,y) ⊃ socE4(x)

 *

   socP19(x,y) ⊃ E55(y)


 socP18 specifies event type (is specified event type of)

Domain:

socE4 Trigger Event Template 

Range:

E55 Type 

Quantification:

/0,n:0,n/

Scope note:

This property associates an instance of socExx Trigger Event Template 
with the type (E55 Type) of the E5 Event which would trigger the planned 
activity. Typically the instance of E5 Event is not known when the 
planned activity and the trigger template are being produced, so it 
cannot be specified.


Examples:

The disaster plan of the Tate Archives (socE2 Activity Plan) concerns 
the event of the river Thames flooding (socE4 Trigger Event Template) 
which specifies an event of type (socPxx specifies event type) "flood" 
(E55 Ty

[Crm-sig] HW for issue 349

[Athanasios Velios]

Hello,

I was asked to summarise the discussion about uncertainty with the aim 
to produce some guidelines on how to deal with it. Francesco has not had 
a chance to review this as I am sending it the last minute, but Nicola 
(who has also been considering the problem) had a quick look at it already.


Please find the document here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17-VzM8RKtrKJappL3KzTPWz_T_rU7T05Qx1WZEinJXQ/edit?usp=sharing

The arguments for or against numerical values of confidence are yet to 
be included.


All the best,

Thanasis

[Crm-sig] part of HW for Issue 412

[Athanasios Velios]

Hello,

Most of this is for Francesco and Vincent, but I had a small part of the 
homework which was to add a sentence to the introductory text to clarify 
that CRMsoc is under development. So here is the text again with the 
added sentence in the end:



What is CRMsoc?
CRMsoc is a formal ontology for integrating data about social phenomena 
and constructs that are of interest in the humanities and social science 
based on analysis of documentary evidence. The scope of CRMsoc is the 
following areas of analysis:

• Characteristics of human beings, as individuals or groups
• Social relations, including between people, between people and 
groups, and between groups

• Rights and duties
• Economic activities, including relations between people and 
things, such as financial transactions leading to ownership

• Plans, including expressing proposed activities and legislation
• Evaluations, including assessing risks and estimating the value 
of things
CRMsoc uses and extends the CIDOC CRM (ISO21127): a general ontology of 
human activity, things and events happening in space-time. It uses the 
same encoding-neutral formalism of knowledge representation (“data 
model” in the sense of computer science) as the CIDOC CRM, which can be 
implemented in RDFS, OWL, in an RDBMS and in other forms of encoding.

--
CRMsoc is currently in active development and we welcome comments and 
contributions to it.

--

Thanasis

[Crm-sig] Issue 332, homework

[Athanasios Velios]

This is to provide an example from conservation of the use of CRMsci 
property Oxx split [D:S2 Sample Taking, R:S13 Sample]:


---
The activity (S2 Sample Taking) of removing fibers from the sample (S13 
Sample) of Japanese Kozo hand-made paper [with dimensions 20cm×3cm], 
which was originally taken from the inside structure of a Japanese 
sliding screen and used for non-destructive spectral imaging, produced 
(Oxx split) the new sample of fibers (S13 Sample) [with sub-milimeter 
dimensions], used for destructive fiber identification.

---

All the best,

Thanasis

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

[Crm-sig] Fwd: Re: Broaden scope of P125

[Athanasios Velios]

Having said that, maybe P126 should go a step up to E7 Activity, as I 
think that the use of a material during an activity does not always 
result in modification. Not more that the use of an object anyway.


Thanasis


 Forwarded Message 
List-Post: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:31:25 +0100

Yep, this looks right. Sorry I missed it. And it was right next door.

T.

On 11/10/2019 20:49, Martin Doerr wrote:

Oops,

The case described by Thanassis should be documented with P126. Isn't it??


  P126 employed (was employed in)

Domain: E11 <#_E11_Modification> Modification

Range: E57 <#_E57_Material> Material

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

Scope note: This property identifies E57 Material employed in an E11 
Modification.


The E57 Material used during the E11 Modification does not necessarily 
become incorporated into the E24 Physical Man-Made Thing that forms the 
subject of the E11 Modification.


Examples:

§ the repairing of the Queen Mary (E11) employed Steel (E57)

§ distilled water (E57) was employed in the restoration of the Sistine 
Chapel (E11)


In First Order Logic:

    P126(x,y) ⊃ E11(x)

    P126(x,y) ⊃ E57(y)


On 10/11/2019 10:22 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear All,

I support the broadening to materials in general. It always implies a 
certain portion of the respective material has been employed or 
applied, even it was never document as an object out of this context.


I do not support "used: blue light". I would document that as 
technique, not as object used. There is no need for a new property or 
scope note to do that.


Best,

Martin

On 10/11/2019 1:33 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Given that it’s not a change to the domain or range, only to the 
scope of the sorts of things that the range can then be applied to, 
it seems easiest and well justified to change the scope note to allow 
further types.


Is there scope for other physical (non-solid, non-liquid) phenomena 
to be included as well? The multispectral photograph’s production 
used_object_of_type  ?


Rob

*From: *Crm-sig  on behalf of 
Athanasios Velios 

*Reply-To: *"thana...@softicon.co.uk" 
*Date: *Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM
*To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
*Subject: *[Crm-sig] Broaden scope of P125

Hello,

Conservators use a range of materials for their treatments. The

treatments can be modelled as "E7 Activity" and the "P125 used object of

type" describes things used during the activity. The scope note only

refers to objects (i.e. solid human-made things). It would be useful if

the scope of this property could be broader to also include non-solid

things such as fluids (e.g. the use of a type of solvent for cleaning).

Unless this can be described in another way I suggest to change the

scope note of P125 from:

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".

to:

This property defines the kind of physical things (solid and non-solid)

used in an E7 Activity, when the specific instance is either unknown or

not of interest, such as use of "a hammer" or the use of "toluene".

The alternative would be to create a new property in CRMsci to include

types of Material Substantial, but given that the range of P125 is only

E55 Type, the nature of the thing can be easily retrieved and I do not

think a new property is necessary.

Any other suggestions?

All the best,

Thanasis

___

Crm-sig mailing list

Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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



--

  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



--

  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)
   

Re: [Crm-sig] Broaden scope of P125

[Athanasios Velios]

Yep, this looks right. Sorry I missed it. And it was right next door.

T.

On 11/10/2019 20:49, Martin Doerr wrote:

Oops,

The case described by Thanassis should be documented with P126. Isn't it??


  P126 employed (was employed in)

Domain: E11 <#_E11_Modification> Modification

Range: E57 <#_E57_Material> Material

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

Scope note: This property identifies E57 Material employed in an E11 
Modification.


The E57 Material used during the E11 Modification does not necessarily 
become incorporated into the E24 Physical Man-Made Thing that forms the 
subject of the E11 Modification.


Examples:

§ the repairing of the Queen Mary (E11) employed Steel (E57)

§ distilled water (E57) was employed in the restoration of the Sistine 
Chapel (E11)


In First Order Logic:

    P126(x,y) ⊃ E11(x)

    P126(x,y) ⊃ E57(y)


On 10/11/2019 10:22 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear All,

I support the broadening to materials in general. It always implies a 
certain portion of the respective material has been employed or 
applied, even it was never document as an object out of this context.


I do not support "used: blue light". I would document that as 
technique, not as object used. There is no need for a new property or 
scope note to do that.


Best,

Martin

On 10/11/2019 1:33 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Given that it’s not a change to the domain or range, only to the 
scope of the sorts of things that the range can then be applied to, 
it seems easiest and well justified to change the scope note to allow 
further types.


Is there scope for other physical (non-solid, non-liquid) phenomena 
to be included as well? The multispectral photograph’s production 
used_object_of_type  ?


Rob

*From: *Crm-sig  on behalf of 
Athanasios Velios 

*Reply-To: *"thana...@softicon.co.uk" 
*Date: *Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM
*To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
*Subject: *[Crm-sig] Broaden scope of P125

Hello,

Conservators use a range of materials for their treatments. The

treatments can be modelled as "E7 Activity" and the "P125 used object of

type" describes things used during the activity. The scope note only

refers to objects (i.e. solid human-made things). It would be useful if

the scope of this property could be broader to also include non-solid

things such as fluids (e.g. the use of a type of solvent for cleaning).

Unless this can be described in another way I suggest to change the

scope note of P125 from:

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".

to:

This property defines the kind of physical things (solid and non-solid)

used in an E7 Activity, when the specific instance is either unknown or

not of interest, such as use of "a hammer" or the use of "toluene".

The alternative would be to create a new property in CRMsci to include

types of Material Substantial, but given that the range of P125 is only

E55 Type, the nature of the thing can be easily retrieved and I do not

think a new property is necessary.

Any other suggestions?

All the best,

Thanasis

___

Crm-sig mailing list

Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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



--

  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



--

  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] Broaden scope of P125

[Athanasios Velios]

Hello,

Conservators use a range of materials for their treatments. The 
treatments can be modelled as "E7 Activity" and the "P125 used object of 
type" describes things used during the activity. The scope note only 
refers to objects (i.e. solid human-made things). It would be useful if 
the scope of this property could be broader to also include non-solid 
things such as fluids (e.g. the use of a type of solvent for cleaning). 
Unless this can be described in another way I suggest to change the 
scope note of P125 from:


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".


to:

This property defines the kind of physical things (solid and non-solid) 
used in an E7 Activity, when the specific instance is either unknown or 
not of interest, such as use of "a hammer" or the use of "toluene".


The alternative would be to create a new property in CRMsci to include 
types of Material Substantial, but given that the range of P125 is only 
E55 Type, the nature of the thing can be easily retrieved and I do not 
think a new property is necessary.


Any other suggestions?

All the best,

Thanasis

Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

The fact that our documentation systems document a direct relationship 
between language/technique and person does not mean that a direct 
relationship is needed in the CRM (we have many examples of direct 
relationships in documentation systems which do not exist in the CRM, 
e.g. "the date" of an object). The act of speaking using a specific 
language or painting using a specific technique can be modelled through 
the respective activities (and I would argue that agency is not limited 
by the person's age, i.e. some babies are certainly determined to do 
things). Modelling through activity allows searching based on the 
language of a text in relation to the language spoken by a person during 
events of a specific time-span. I think the queries that Rob mentioned 
can be answered that way.


I appreciate the difference between the activity of speaking using a 
language and the mental capacity of a person to speak a language or to 
hold any knowledge. I am not sure there are any research questions that 
cannot be answered by modelling this through using activity. To model 
knowledge is to model deduction for which we already have necessary classes.


All the best,

Thanasis

On 27/08/2019 11:53, George Bruseker wrote:

Dear all,

Sticking to the question of documenting when we have information that 
someone knew a language or had a skill in a technique, I reiterate that 
I believe really need a new property and not to use p2 has type.


p2 has type is a good solution for classifying a kind of phenomena or 
for specializing a class when it does not require a new relation in the 
ontology. It's a very useful tool but it does not work for what we need 
to document here.


The semantics of saying that someone had knowledge in a language can 
indeed be interpreted as E21 Person p2 has type E55 "English Speaker". 
It could not, however, be typed E21 person p2 has type E57 Language 
"English". Why? Because the E57 Type classifies the phenomenon of 
language not of people. The E55 is relative to the phenomenon it 
classifies/specializes. People are not language nor vice versa. One of 
the things we would want to make possible in linking an E21 person to an 
E57 Language is to create consistent and potentially serendipitous 
relations between an instance of person and an instance of language. (As 
one of Rob's examples: the work used E57 English and the person who 
encountered it E5 was a knower of E57 English, ergo, they could but did 
not necessarily read it!) This would not be facilitated by saying E21 
Person p2 has type E55 "English Speaker" because there are no given 
semantic connections between the instance "English Speaker" which 
classified a person as a kind and the instance E57 Language "English" 
which classifies linguistic phenomena.


The semantic intent, I would argue, in the schemas that document fields 
like language and technique is often not to say that this person is of 
type "English Speaker" or even of type "Painter" but that they have/had 
knowledge of English (linguistic phenomenon) or Painting (technical 
phenomenon). Because someone knows or uses a technique does make them 
someone who would generally be classified (with regards to official 
documentation) as being an exemplar of that language/technique. So as 
Rob is not necessarily a 'French Speaker" though he knows French, George 
is not necessarily a Painter, though he may have a knowledge of painting 
notable enough to document. (It is counterfactual, I don't even have 
this knowledge but for lack of a better example)


Human beings are an objective phenomenon that can be witnessed and have 
certain behaviours and potentials which other phenomena do not, one of 
which includes the ability to know. We should be able to document this 
objective phenomenon because it falls within scope. The kind of 
knowledge in question is not an act of knowing (temporal) but the result 
of having learned and now acquired a new understanding which allows the 
human being to act in the world in a new skillful way in certain 
situations. This knowledge remains, more or less present, in the knower 
without any particular activation once they have acquired it (forgetting 
and rustiness not withstanding). It is simply one of their properties.


It's all a long winded way of saying that we need a relation between E21 
Person (at least) to indicate that they have a knowledge. There should 
be a binary property for this (which could then be extended) which 
allows one to make the simple statement, A knows B. This would not be a 
sub property of P2 has type, but a new property. I'm not sure if it 
would have an existing superproperty. My original suggestion would be to 
stick to language and then go for a super class, although the question 
of technique also arises.


The other issues Rob and Franco raise about documenting fiat groups/sets 
are very important but perhaps we could make them another discussion and 
issue (when it comes time to formula

Re: [Crm-sig] EMAIL SUSPEITO: P72 has Language

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear Maria,

I think the complexity is from the fact that Language in the CRM is 
modelled as a Type, i.e. to be used for classifying things.


How about creating an E7 Activity to describe learning a language and 
then use P16 used specific object → E56 Language?


Or create a separate authority list of types of people: "greek speakers, 
english speakers, welsh speakers, etc"


Any other thoughts?

All the best,

Thanasis


On 23/08/2019 17:17, Maria Jose de Almeida wrote:

Dear all,


As some of you may know, I’m working in the Portuguese National Archives 
an we are building a new data infrastructure using CIDOC-CRM for 
archival description.


When describing biographical information it’s common to state that some 
person was fluent in some language, or languages, apart from his/her 
native one. Using current archival descriptions standards [ISAD(G) 
3.2.2; EAD ] this is represented within a text, usually a very 
long text string with information of distinct natures. So far we have 
been able to decompose the different elements and represent them 
adequately as instances of CIDOC-CRM classes and link them trough the 
suitable properties. But we are struggling with this one...


We cannot link a Person (E21) to a language (E56) and neither use 
multiple instantiation, as it has been suggested in other cases 
(http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-258-p72-quantification), because 
Person (E21) and Linguistic Object (E33) are disjoint.


The only way around I can think of is to consider someone’s speech as a 
linguistic object and state that that person participated in the 
creation of that linguistic object.


But it seams a rather odd solution as we would have to crate individuals 
for someone’s speech in Portuguese, in French, in Russian, etc. and 
describe them in a very broader manner. Because when it is stated that a 
person is fluent in any of those languages, typically what is meant is 
that that person could interact with other speakers of the same 
language, mainly trough an oral discourse, or read written documents. 
Not exactly the same as creating documents in a foreign language, 
situation which is much more straightforward to represent.



Any thoughts that may help us?

Thanks!

--
Maria José de Almeida
Técnica Superior
_Direção de Serviços de Inovação e Administração Eletrónica
_Telefone (direto): 210 037 343
_Telefone (geral):  210 037 100
_m-jose.alme...@dglab.gov.pt 

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

Re: [Crm-sig] [Sci] Are O9 and P171 identical?

[Athanasios Velios]

I think "O9 observed property type" could be defined as a sub-property
of "P177 assigned property type". I do not think it should be removed,
it may be useful for searching.

Also, I have noticed that in version 6.2.6, under "P2 has type", the
"P177 assigned property type" is not listed as a sub-property and it should.

Thanasis

On 21/06/2019 18:05, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Apologies for the confusion!
>
> I mean P177 assigned property type, not P171!
>
> (I was working from memory, given that the numbers were reused … to
> cross the threads)
>
> Rob
>
> *From: *Robert Sanderson 
> *Date: *Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:53 AM
> *To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
> *Subject: *[Sci] Are O9 and P171 identical?
>
> Dear all,
>
> In working on a model for our conservation science folks, I observe
> [intended] that O9 and the new P171 both fill the same role – a
> subproperty of P2_has_type that goes from the activity to a property
> type, such that the explicit relationship between the observed entity
> and the measurement can be recorded. Does the introduction of P171
> obviate the need for O9?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rob
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may 
contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based upon them and 
you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and 
immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where this email is 
unrelated to the business of University of the Arts London or of any of its 
group companies the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and 
do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the 
relevant group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the email 
is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also applies: UAL 
Short Courses Limited is a company registered in England and Wales under 
company number 02361261. Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272 
High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY

[Crm-sig] HW issue 419: Activity plans and specification of events

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

Following discussions with Martin I am sending some homework about the
specification of events with which the activity plans are concerned, and
also a revision of the Activity Plan scope note. Also attached.

-

socExx Event Specification
subclass of : E89 Propositional Object

Scope note:

This class comprises specifications of events by providing necessary or
desirable constraints to their properties, be it on the level of
particular items involved or on the level of kinds of processes, items
or qualities and quantities involved. Such specifications may be used to
recognize that a past or future particular event fits the specification
or for planning future events. Characteristically, instances of this
class may be created to be associated with instances of socExx Activity
Plan, as specification of the kind of event that should trigger the
execution of an Activity Plan. For example, we expect a disaster plan
for a library to be executed when a disaster happens or as part of a
disaster readiness exercise.

Examples:

* The description of the rainy weather conditions at the location and
date of my wedding (socExx Event Specification) done in advance by my
wedding planner, which was specified to trigger the plan (socExx
Activity Plan) of using a gazeebo.
* The description of the sunny weather conditions at the location and
date of my wedding (socExx Event Specification) done in advance by my
wedding planner, which was specified to trigger the plan (socExx
Activity Plan) of taking photographs at the park.
* The description of the humidity level reached in the museum store room
(socExx Event Specification) done in advance by a preventive
conservator, which was specified to trigger the plan (socExx Activity
Plan) of turning on the dehumidifier.

Properties:

* socPxx requires event type (is required event type of): E55 Type
(e.g.1 rainy weather and wedding, e.g.2 change of humidity)
* socPxx requires actor role (is required actor role of): E55 Type
(e.g.1 mayor)
* socPxx requires type of thing (is required type of thing of): E55 Type
(e.g., a car)
* socPxx requires place (is required place of): E53 Place (e.g.1 Cardiff
city hall, e.g.2 National Museum Wales store room)
* socPxx requires time-span (is required time-span of): E4 Time-span
(e.g.1 4th of June 2019, e.g.2 winter of 2019)
* socPxx requires actor (is required actor of): E39 Actor (e.g.1 mayor
John Smith)
* socPxx requires material substantial (is required material substantial
of): S10 Material Substantial (e.g.1 wedding ring, e.g.2 air in NMW
store room)
* ?? socPxx requires condition (is required condition): E89
Propositional Object? (e.g.2 that the RH > 20%)

--

socExx Activity Plan
subclass of: E29 Design or Procedure

Scope note:

This class comprises plans foreseeing specific predefined activities or
kinds of activities taking place. They consist of descriptions of
specific constraints, patterns or types of activities that could be
realized. They may also foresee that the planned activities are realized
at times explicitly foreseen by the actor intending the application of
the plan, for instance, to organize a conference, in which case we may
talk about “active plans”. Alternatively, times of realization may be
foreseen in reaction to external events of a kind foreseen by the plan,
for instance the rescue activity after an earthquake following a rescue
plan, or a penal action in the case of criminal activity according to a
penal code, in which case we may talk about “reactive plans”. The
specification of the related planned or unplanned events can be done
using instances of socExx Event Specification. The fact that an instance
of socExx Activity Plan is linked to an instance of socExx Event
Specification does not require that it will only be executed after
events conforming to that specification take place.
The existence of an instance of Activity Plan does not necessarily imply
the intention of any Actor to apply it. It may be created together,
before or without the will to apply it. For instance, laws are created
before they are passed by parliament. Any Activity Plan may require
specific conditions for it to be applicable. For example, a plan to
excavate a river bank may require that the river is flooded, or my plan
to lime plaster my stone wall requires that it is winter (i.e. wet and
cold).

Examples:

The disaster plan of Tate Archives in case of the Thames flooding.
The proposal for conservation work for MS Greek 418 at the Saint
Catherine library.
Provisions of Law 3730/2008 of the Greek Government against smoking in
work places.

Properties:

socP100 concerns: socExx Event Specification

socP4 is assessed by: E31 Document

-

All the best,

Thanasis
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may 
contain confidential infor

[Crm-sig] HW: Issue 410 - basic concepts intro

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

Following a discussion with Martin I am attaching the introduction to
basic CRM concepts for the CRM document which is to be followed by the
graphical representations and examples. We anticipate changes when all
material is considered together.



Introduction to basic concepts

The following paragraphs explain core CRM concepts.
The CRM can describe entities which remain relatively stable with the
passing of time (E77 Persistent Item) and have identity based on the
continuity or continued availability of their properties. These include,
among others, monuments (e.g. E22 Human-Made Object) and mental ideas
(e.g. E28 Conceptual Object). These entities are prone to change through
human activity, biological, geological or environmental processes, but
are regarded to exist as long as such changes do not alter their essence
(their identity). For example, the Great Sphinx of Giza may have lost
part of its nose, but there is no question that we are still referring
to the same monument as that before the damage occured, since it
continues to represent significant characteristics of an overall shaping
in the past which is of archaeological relevance.

The CRM also includes entities (E2 Temporal Entity) which are themselves
time-limited processes or evolutions within the passing of time. They
necessarily involve an affected material, social or mental environment,
in the form of E77 Persistent Items or continuous substance, such as the
atmosphere.  They include among others making things by humans (E12
Production) and geological events (E5 Event). Once these entities occur,
they can only be experienced through observation or recordings. Evidence
of such entities (E2 Temporal Entity) may be preserved on material
objects being permanently affected or recorded through oral history.

Therefore a basic distinction of records modelled through the CRM is
between instances of E77 Persistent Item (endurants) and instances of E2
Temporal Entity (perdurants). In most cases this distinction is adequate
to describe database records. In exceptional cases, where we need to
consider complex combinations of changes of spatial extent over time,
the concept of spacetime (E92 Spacetime Volume) also needs to be
considered. E92 Spacetime Volume describes the entities whose substance
has or is an identifiable, confined geometrical extent that may vary
over time, fuzzy boundaries notwithstanding. For example, the built
settlement structure of the city of Athens is confined both from the
point of view of time-span (from its founding until now) and from its
changing geographical extent over the centuries, which may become more
or less evident from current observation, documents and excavations.
Even though E92 Spacetime Volume is an important theoretical part of the
model, it can be ignored for most practical documentation and modeling
tasks.

We explain these concepts with the help of graphical representations in
the next sections.




All the best,

Thanasis

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