Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling a simulated view on a physical space

[Florian Kräutli via Crm-sig]

Dear colleagues,

thank you so much for all your thoughts and input!

The examples by Franco indeed illustrate the problem very well. We also do have 
many images that are composites of different views. The engineers at Smapshot 
may come up with ways to accommodate this, for example by distorting the image 
or by enabling a segmented georeferencing of an image. 

We also have landscapes where we are quite certain that their creator has never 
actually seen the view themself, but has copied a landscape from another 
artist. So we can't make any statement about the location of an artist when 
creating an image. In the case of photographs we can make such statements and 
would be able to use the measurement approach that Martin described.

In general, I would tend to represent in data what we know and only in a second 
step what we conclude from that knowledge. Øyvind's suggestion therefore sounds 
plausible, too. We create a 3D model, and from this model we conclude 
something, namely a hypothetical viewpoint of an observer. I have to give it 
some thought how to represent this in a data model without creating too many 
statements that are not grounded in available data, but I think it might be a 
good direction for this particular problem.

Thank you all again, best wishes,

Florian

> On 31. Oct 2021, at 12:12, Øyvind Eide  wrote:
> 
> Dear Florian,
> 
> in addition to the comments made by others, which makes a lot of sense too, I 
> would offer the additional perspective that the resulting 3D model (with the 
> added canvas) can be seen as a collage of the source 3D model and a digital 
> reproduction of the photography / painting — thus as a work is the bringing 
> together, based on certain rules and principles, of two works. 
> 
> I think this adds a different perspective than some of the others mentioned. 
> Which perspectives to focus on when modelling such processes is a pragmatic 
> choice. 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Øyvind
> 
>> Am 27.10.2021 um 12:18 schrieb Florian Kräutli via Crm-sig 
>> mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>:
>> 
>> Dear Øyvind,
>> 
>> Thank you very much for your input! To answer your questions:
>> 
>> 1. Yes, the tool uses a 3D model of a landscape (based on Cesium: 
>> https://cesium.com/ <https://cesium.com/>)
>> 2. Yes
>> 3. Yes. The tool positions the image in a 3D landscape so that from the 
>> calculated viewpoint, the 2D image aligns with the 3D landscape. The tool 
>> also outputs a glTF of what I assume is the canvas position in the 
>> coordinate system: 
>> https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/api/v1/data/collections/36/gltf/204037.gltf 
>> <https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/api/v1/data/collections/36/gltf/204037.gltf>
>>  (though I'm not familiar with this file format)
>> 
>> I should mention that I also discussed this issue via Slack with Matteo 
>> Lorenzini. Nicola Carboni already prepared a model to document the 
>> perspective over a place by a person, documented as the point of observation 
>> by an actor. We concluded that we could apply that model also in this case. 
>> However, I would be very interested in your thoughts on how to treat it on 
>> the level of the 3D model. That might help me to model the data closer to 
>> the actual process of how it was obtained.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Florian
>> 
>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling a simulated view on a physical space
>>> Date: 26. October 2021 at 21:58:32 CEST
>>> To: Florian Kräutli >> <mailto:florian.kraeu...@uzh.ch>>
>>> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Florian,
>>> 
>>> thank you for this interesting puzzle!
>>> 
>>> Before I venture into concrete suggestions, allow me to ask some question 
>>> in the form of assumptions you can confirm, reject, or discuss:
>>> 
>>> The establishment of a hypothetical viewpoint is used to establish a 
>>> location of the canvas. That means the following:
>>> 
>>> 1. There is a 3D model of a landscape where each point (also those making 
>>> up lines and polygons) are normal (x,y,z) coordinates in some coordinate 
>>> system.
>>> 
>>> 2. The hypothetical/assumed viewpoint of the photographer or the painter is 
>>> a point in the same coordinate system.
>>> 
>>> 3. Each point of the canvas (representing a painting or a photography) 
>>> being put into the landscape is a point in the same coordinate system. Thus 
>>> the canvas as a whole is an area in that coordinate system.
>>> 
>>> If this is so, we might very well 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling a simulated view on a physical space

[Florian Kräutli via Crm-sig]

Dear Øyvind,

Thank you very much for your input! To answer your questions:

1. Yes, the tool uses a 3D model of a landscape (based on Cesium: 
https://cesium.com/ <https://cesium.com/>)
2. Yes
3. Yes. The tool positions the image in a 3D landscape so that from the 
calculated viewpoint, the 2D image aligns with the 3D landscape. The tool also 
outputs a glTF of what I assume is the canvas position in the coordinate 
system: https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/api/v1/data/collections/36/gltf/204037.gltf
 (though I'm not familiar with this file format)

I should mention that I also discussed this issue via Slack with Matteo 
Lorenzini. Nicola Carboni already prepared a model to document the perspective 
over a place by a person, documented as the point of observation by an actor. 
We concluded that we could apply that model also in this case. However, I would 
be very interested in your thoughts on how to treat it on the level of the 3D 
model. That might help me to model the data closer to the actual process of how 
it was obtained.

Best wishes,

Florian


> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling a simulated view on a physical space
> Date: 26. October 2021 at 21:58:32 CEST
> To: Florian Kräutli 
> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> 
> 
> Dear Florian,
> 
> thank you for this interesting puzzle!
> 
> Before I venture into concrete suggestions, allow me to ask some question in 
> the form of assumptions you can confirm, reject, or discuss:
> 
> The establishment of a hypothetical viewpoint is used to establish a location 
> of the canvas. That means the following:
> 
> 1. There is a 3D model of a landscape where each point (also those making up 
> lines and polygons) are normal (x,y,z) coordinates in some coordinate system.
> 
> 2. The hypothetical/assumed viewpoint of the photographer or the painter is a 
> point in the same coordinate system.
> 
> 3. Each point of the canvas (representing a painting or a photography) being 
> put into the landscape is a point in the same coordinate system. Thus the 
> canvas as a whole is an area in that coordinate system.
> 
> If this is so, we might very well talk about something added to a 
> pre-existing 3D model. If not, I would be happy to be enlightened and 
> hopefully manage to dig further. 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Øyvind
> 
>> Am 26.10.2021 um 10:28 schrieb Florian Kräutli via Crm-sig 
>> mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I have a data modelling challenge I would need some advice with.
>> 
>> We work with a collection of geographic depictions of Switzerland. This 
>> includes photographs, paintings, prints, sketches, etc. We collaborate with 
>> Smapshot <http://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/> who developed a method for aligning 
>> landscape photographs with a 3D model of the physical landscape. An example 
>> from our own collection can be seen here: 
>> https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/visit/204037 
>> <https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/visit/204037>
>> 
>> Using this method we can determine the possible viewpoint of a photographer 
>> when taking a picture, or the viewpoint from which an artist may have 
>> produced sketches of a landscape. In terms of data, we obtain the simulated 
>> position and view of the photographer/artist as coordinates (lat/long), 
>> altitude, azimuth, tilt, roll and focal view.
>> 
>> I'm debating now how to model this obtained data in CIDOC-CRM. I would 
>> suggest a S7 Simulation or Prediction for the process of using the Smapshot 
>> app to determine a viewpoint of an image. This process P140 assigns an 
>> attribute to a E36 Visual Item, namely that the E36 Visual Item (the image) 
>> P138 Represents a view. What is this view? Can we say it is a E53 Place? Or 
>> is there a more suitable entity for describing such a (simulated) view?
>> 
>> One could also say that the data defines a E53 Place from which an image has 
>> been created. However, while we can say this with some degree of certainty 
>> for photographs, a painting of a landscape might have been created using a 
>> combination of several viewpoints as well as, of course, use of imagination 
>> on and off-site, so I would be hesitant to make a statement about the 
>> physical location of an artist when creating a painting.
>> 
>> I would be grateful for your input!
>> 
>> All best,
>> 
>> Florian
>> 
>> ___
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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

[Crm-sig] Modelling a simulated view on a physical space

[Florian Kräutli via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

I have a data modelling challenge I would need some advice with.

We work with a collection of geographic depictions of Switzerland. This 
includes photographs, paintings, prints, sketches, etc. We collaborate with 
Smapshot  who developed a method for aligning 
landscape photographs with a 3D model of the physical landscape. An example 
from our own collection can be seen here: 
https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/visit/204037

Using this method we can determine the possible viewpoint of a photographer 
when taking a picture, or the viewpoint from which an artist may have produced 
sketches of a landscape. In terms of data, we obtain the simulated position and 
view of the photographer/artist as coordinates (lat/long), altitude, azimuth, 
tilt, roll and focal view.

I'm debating now how to model this obtained data in CIDOC-CRM. I would suggest 
a S7 Simulation or Prediction for the process of using the Smapshot app to 
determine a viewpoint of an image. This process P140 assigns an attribute to a 
E36 Visual Item, namely that the E36 Visual Item (the image) P138 Represents a 
view. What is this view? Can we say it is a E53 Place? Or is there a more 
suitable entity for describing such a (simulated) view?

One could also say that the data defines a E53 Place from which an image has 
been created. However, while we can say this with some degree of certainty for 
photographs, a painting of a landscape might have been created using a 
combination of several viewpoints as well as, of course, use of imagination on 
and off-site, so I would be hesitant to make a statement about the physical 
location of an artist when creating a painting.

I would be grateful for your input!

All best,

Florian

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

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling the number of sheets used to print a book

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear Martin,

many thanks for your input! That's exactly the point. The sheets refer to the 
production process but modelling it all would be quite clumsy (and a bit 
presumptuous as we can't know the process precisely).

We don't have the actual physical books. We derive the sheets from the digital 
copies and information in library catalogues. We therefore infer something 
about the "intended physical features" of the book and therefore the printing 
process.

I think a Dimension associated with the F3 would indeed be appropriate.

All best,

Florian

> On 17. Apr 2020, at 15:19, Martin Doerr  wrote:
> 
> I agree. The thing should be an LRMoo F5 Item :
> 
> Scope note: This class comprises physical objects (printed books, 
> scores, CDs, DVDs, CD-ROMS, etc.) that were produced by (P186i) an industrial 
> process involving a given instance of F3 Manifestation. ...
> 
> Question: Are the sheets those actually bound, or are the bound pages part of 
> larger sheets? I assume the latter.
> 
> If we would do very analytical modelling of the processes, those sheets would 
> be the semi-finished product. Then, the final production process would use 
> the intermediate product. Sound unnecessarily clumsy.
> 
> If we in general infer the actual number of sheets from evidence in the 
> actual book, I think the Dimension is a good solution.
> 
> In LRMoo, the F3 Manifestation (former Manifestation Product Type) has been 
> generalized to the immaterial content including the intended physical 
> features.  Then, the Dimension could go directly to F3, or a new property 
> "number of print sheets" would be needed.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> martin
> 
> On 4/17/2020 2:16 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
>> First thing coming to my mind, assuming for instance it is “Yourbook” of 150 
>> sheets: introduce an E54 Dimension "number of sheets” and measure it
>> 
>> E70 Thing <“Yourbook”> (or whatever way you encode the physical book)
>> P43 has dimension
>> E54 Dimension <"Number of sheets">
>> P90 has value
>>  E60 Number <150>
>> P91 has unit
>>  E58 Measurement Unit <"Sheet number">
>> 
>> A bit verbose but you can extract & process directly the number of sheets, 
>> select small books etc., calculate the printing cost etc
>> Note that P43 has domain E70 Thing so you can attach it to any subclass of 
>> Thing / physical object you wish to use for the book. E-books may require 
>> further work/different approach.
>> 
>> Obviously this refers to a specific paper edition, exactly “that" tangible 
>> object, as a paperback may have a number of pages different from a 
>> hard-cover of the same literary object.
>> 
>> Franco
>> 
>> Prof. Franco Niccolucci
>> Director, VAST-LAB
>> PIN - U. of Florence
>> Scientific Coordinator
>> ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS
>> 
>> Editor-in-Chief
>> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
>> 
>> Piazza Ciardi 25
>> 59100 Prato, Italy
>> 
>> 
>>> Il giorno 17 apr 2020, alle ore 12:07, Florian Kräutli 
>>>  ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I have a data modelling issue that I would like to discuss with you.
>>> 
>>> We have a database of books. Currently we are in the process of 
>>> identifying, for each book, the number of sheets used to print it. The 
>>> number of sheets is a good indication for the investment required to print 
>>> a book. We want to store this information in the database.
>>> 
>>> We do already capture the number of pages in the digitised copy as well as 
>>> the physical format of the book (using P43 has dimension on an F5 Item). We 
>>> capture data related to the printing of the book via a F3 Manifestation 
>>> Product Type and a F32 Carrier Production Event.
>>> 
>>> My intuition is that the number of sheets could be modelled as an E29 
>>> Design or Procedure that P129 is about the F3 Manifestation Product Type.
>>> 
>>> But how to add the information "number of sheets" to the E29 Design?
>>> 
>>> Two thoughts:
>>> - Simply as P3 has note: "20 sheets" (I would like it to be more machine 
>>> readable)
>>> - as a P68 foresees use of E57 Material that P2 has type "sheet" (but where 
>>> to add the quantity of sheets?)
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> 
>>> Florian
>>> ___

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling the number of sheets used to print a book

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear Franco,

many thanks for your suggestion! We do currently use this construct to 
represent the format of the book (folio, quarto, etc.). Indeed it might be an 
option to use the same for sheets.

The reason I am hesitant to do so is because the number of sheets is more a 
property of the printing process than of the final book. 

Say you can print 16 pages using one print sheet and you intend to print a 
booklet of 20 pages. You would then require two sheets to print the booklet, 
ending up with 12 empty pages that will not be included in the book (apologies 
if this is all factually incorrect, I'm not a book historian, just illustrating 
the thinking behind not modelling the number of sheets as a property of the 
book).

For this reason my thinking was that it would make more sense to add this 
information somewhere in the F3/E29 area. What do you think about using CLP43 
should have dimension -> E54 Dimension on F3 Manifestation Product Type?

Best,

Florian 


> On 17. Apr 2020, at 13:16, Franco Niccolucci  
> wrote:
> 
> First thing coming to my mind, assuming for instance it is “Yourbook” of 150 
> sheets: introduce an E54 Dimension "number of sheets” and measure it
> 
> E70 Thing <“Yourbook”> (or whatever way you encode the physical book)
> P43 has dimension
> E54 Dimension <"Number of sheets">
> P90 has value
>   E60 Number <150>
> P91 has unit
>   E58 Measurement Unit <"Sheet number">
> 
> A bit verbose but you can extract & process directly the number of sheets, 
> select small books etc., calculate the printing cost etc
> Note that P43 has domain E70 Thing so you can attach it to any subclass of 
> Thing / physical object you wish to use for the book. E-books may require 
> further work/different approach.
> 
> Obviously this refers to a specific paper edition, exactly “that" tangible 
> object, as a paperback may have a number of pages different from a hard-cover 
> of the same literary object.
> 
> Franco
> 
> Prof. Franco Niccolucci
> Director, VAST-LAB
> PIN - U. of Florence
> Scientific Coordinator
> ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS
> 
> Editor-in-Chief
> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 
> 
> Piazza Ciardi 25
> 59100 Prato, Italy
> 
> 
>> Il giorno 17 apr 2020, alle ore 12:07, Florian Kräutli 
>>  ha scritto:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I have a data modelling issue that I would like to discuss with you.
>> 
>> We have a database of books. Currently we are in the process of identifying, 
>> for each book, the number of sheets used to print it. The number of sheets 
>> is a good indication for the investment required to print a book. We want to 
>> store this information in the database.
>> 
>> We do already capture the number of pages in the digitised copy as well as 
>> the physical format of the book (using P43 has dimension on an F5 Item). We 
>> capture data related to the printing of the book via a F3 Manifestation 
>> Product Type and a F32 Carrier Production Event.
>> 
>> My intuition is that the number of sheets could be modelled as an E29 Design 
>> or Procedure that P129 is about the F3 Manifestation Product Type.
>> 
>> But how to add the information "number of sheets" to the E29 Design? 
>> 
>> Two thoughts:
>> - Simply as P3 has note: "20 sheets" (I would like it to be more machine 
>> readable)
>> - as a P68 foresees use of E57 Material that P2 has type "sheet" (but where 
>> to add the quantity of sheets?)
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Florian
>> ___
>> 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] Modelling the number of sheets used to print a book

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear all,

I have a data modelling issue that I would like to discuss with you.

We have a database of books . Currently 
we are in the process of identifying, for each book, the number of sheets used 
to print it. The number of sheets is a good indication for the investment 
required to print a book. We want to store this information in the database.

We do already capture the number of pages in the digitised copy as well as the 
physical format of the book (using P43 has dimension on an F5 Item). We capture 
data related to the printing of the book via a F3 Manifestation Product Type 
and a F32 Carrier Production Event.

My intuition is that the number of sheets could be modelled as an E29 Design or 
Procedure that P129 is about the F3 Manifestation Product Type.

But how to add the information "number of sheets" to the E29 Design? 

Two thoughts:
- Simply as P3 has note: "20 sheets" (I would like it to be more machine 
readable)
- as a P68 foresees use of E57 Material that P2 has type "sheet" (but where to 
add the quantity of sheets?)

What do you think?

Best wishes,

Florian___
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

[Florian Kräutli]

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 sure this will open up a 
> large discussion!
> 
> Look forward to see you all soon!
> 
> Best,
> 
> George
> 
> ref: https://github.com/linked-art/linked.art/issues/281 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] begin_of_the_begin /end_of_the_end is excluded from time range?

[Florian Kräutli]

  
  
  

I actually think that the text makes the right assumption. If something 
is said to have happened in 1586 we can be reasonablycertain that it happened 
before 1 January 1587. We can’t be certain that it did not happen a millisecond 
after 31 December 1586 at 23:59:59. 
I think we should provide two examples. One that matches the text and the 
current one, mentioning that this can be done for ease of implementation. 
Which version one implements is after all not the decision of the CRM, but 
depends on the available knowledge and interpretation of the source data. 
Best,
Florian







  




On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 7:42 PM +0200, "Robert Sanderson"  
wrote:






















 


Thanks Florian, Nicola!


 


Should the example be updated (and thus we must all update our implementations) 
or the specification to match the example which everyone seems to do in 
practice?


My proposal would be to do the latter, in the face of the current ambiguity.



 


What has everyone else done in this situation? 3 data points is interesting, 
but still anecdotal.


 


(And I’m not going to mention leap seconds that would make the end of some 
years 23:59:60 instead of 23:59:59, which would be solved by an exclusive end 
date)


 


Rob


 



From: 
Nicola Carboni 

List-Post: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 10:27 AM

To: Florian Kräutli 

Cc: Robert Sanderson , crm-sig , 
Adam Brin , Greg Williams 

Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] begin_of_the_begin /end_of_the_end is excluded from time 
range?




 




Dear all,  



 




I also follow the range as appear in the data linked by Florian, so:




 




crm:P82a_begin_of_the_begin “1586-01-01T00:00:00”^^xsd:date
;




crm:P82b_end_of_the_end  “1586-12-31T23:59:59”^^xsd:date
;




I agree that the example should be harmonised with the text ( which I assume is 
more authoritative). Thank you for pointing out about the problem 













Best,













Nicola




 



Sent from my iPad






On 9 May 2019, at 10:04, Florian Kräutli  wrote:





Dear Rob, 



 




Not having read the guidelines as attentively as you I usually implement P82a/b 
suggesting that the begin and end date are both included in the range.




 




For example, here's the date related to a book published in 1586:




 




http://sphaera.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/id/item/7e241bb5-41e3-4e08-9ab1-547a93fe6b3d/publication/date




 





I think this is readable as a confidence interval of the book having been 
published somewhen in 1586, lacking better ways to express the level of 
accuracy in date datatypes.




 




Best,




 




Florian




 













On 8. May 2019, at 19:50, Robert Sanderson  wrote:



 




 




Dear all,




 




I admit I made the rookie mistake of assuming that the P81a/b and P82a/b 
properties followed the typical temporal pattern of an inclusive beginning and 
an exclusive
 end.




Or using interval notation: [begin_of_the_begin, end_of_the_end)




 




Thus if you know that an event happened sometime in 1586, the begin of the 
begin would be 1586-01-01T00:00:00 and the end of the end would be 
1587-01-01:00:00:00.




 




However, http://www.cidoc-crm.org/guidelines-for-using-p82a-p82b-p81a-p81b seems
 to clarify that both are exclusive.




 




> "P82a_begin_of_the_begin" should be instantiated as the latest point in time 
> the user is sure that the respective temporal phenomenon is indeed *not yet*
 happening.




> "P82b_end_of_the_end" should be instantiated as the earliest point in time 
> the user is sure that the respective temporal phenomenon is indeed *no longer*
 ongoing.




 




And thus (begin_of_the_begin, end_of_the_end)




 




Meaning that the begin of the begin would need to be 1585-12-31T23:59:59 such 
that midnight on January first is included in the range, and the end of the end 
would
 be midnight of January first, 1587.




 




However, in the following paragraph it says:




 




>  … e.g. 1971 = Jan 1 1971 0:00:00. Respectively, for “P82b_end_of_the_end” 
>the implementation should “round it up”, e.g. 1971 = Dec 31 1971 23:59:59.




 




Which would mean that both ends were *included* in the range.




And thus [begin_of_the_begin, end_of_the_end]




 




So …




 




Enquiring minds that need to implement this consistently would like to know 
which is correct ☺




 




 




Many thanks!




 




Rob




 




 




 




 



___

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] begin_of_the_begin /end_of_the_end is excluded from time range?

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear Rob,

Not having read the guidelines as attentively as you I usually implement P82a/b 
suggesting that the begin and end date are both included in the range.

For example, here's the date related to a book published in 1586:

http://sphaera.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/id/item/7e241bb5-41e3-4e08-9ab1-547a93fe6b3d/publication/date
 


I think this is readable as a confidence interval of the book having been 
published somewhen in 1586, lacking better ways to express the level of 
accuracy in date datatypes.

Best,

Florian


> On 8. May 2019, at 19:50, Robert Sanderson  wrote:
> 
>  
> Dear all,
>  
> I admit I made the rookie mistake of assuming that the P81a/b and P82a/b 
> properties followed the typical temporal pattern of an inclusive beginning 
> and an exclusive end.
> Or using interval notation: [begin_of_the_begin, end_of_the_end)
>  
> Thus if you know that an event happened sometime in 1586, the begin of the 
> begin would be 1586-01-01T00:00:00 and the end of the end would be 
> 1587-01-01:00:00:00.
>  
> However, http://www.cidoc-crm.org/guidelines-for-using-p82a-p82b-p81a-p81b 
>  seems to 
> clarify that both are exclusive.
>  
> > "P82a_begin_of_the_begin" should be instantiated as the latest point in 
> > time the user is sure that the respective temporal phenomenon is indeed 
> > *not yet* happening.
> > "P82b_end_of_the_end" should be instantiated as the earliest point in time 
> > the user is sure that the respective temporal phenomenon is indeed *no 
> > longer* ongoing.
>  
> And thus (begin_of_the_begin, end_of_the_end)
>  
> Meaning that the begin of the begin would need to be 1585-12-31T23:59:59 such 
> that midnight on January first is included in the range, and the end of the 
> end would be midnight of January first, 1587.
>  
> However, in the following paragraph it says:
>  
> >  … e.g. 1971 = Jan 1 1971 0:00:00. Respectively, for “P82b_end_of_the_end” 
> > the implementation should “round it up”, e.g. 1971 = Dec 31 1971 23:59:59.
>  
> Which would mean that both ends were *included* in the range.
> And thus [begin_of_the_begin, end_of_the_end]
>  
> So …
>  
> Enquiring minds that need to implement this consistently would like to know 
> which is correct ☺
>  
>  
> Many thanks!
>  
> Rob
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr 
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig 
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 410 homework (P11 & P12)

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear all,

You can also use either the singular 'they/their'...

"The known events in which an instance of E39 Actor has participated can be 
seen as stations of their course of life, their history."

or a plural...

"The known events in which instances of E39 Actors have participated can be 
seen as stations of their course of life, their history."

if one wants to avoid binaries.

I would use the latter because you start the scope note with E39 in plural 
("This property describes the active or passive participation of instances of 
E39 Actors in an E5 Event.")

Best,

Florian



> On 2. May 2019, at 11:26, melanie.ro...@bnf.fr wrote:
> 
> Dear Martin,
> 
> I agree with George: the first sentence of the scope note for P11 should read 
> "The known events in which an instance of E39 Actor has participated can be 
> seen as stations of his or her course of life, his or her history."
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Mélanie.
> 
> 
> 
> De :bruse...@ics.forth.gr
> A :crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Date :30/04/2019 20:23
> Objet :Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 410 homework (P11 & P12)
> Envoyé par :"Crm-sig" 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Martin,
> 
> It looks like a good rewrite. The scope note for p11 should probably  
> adopt 'her' as a pronoun in the formulation.
> 
> Best,
> George
> 
> 
> Quoting Martin Doerr :
> 
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Here my rewriting of the scope notes of P11 and P12. It is a part of  
> > the most fundamental reasoning in the CRM, which may be formulated  
> > in FOL. Likelihoods of course not;-). Comments most welcome!
> >
> >
> >  OLD:
> >
> >
> >  P11 had participant (participated in)
> >
> > Domain: E5 <#_E5_Event> Event
> >
> > Range: E39 <#_E39_Actor> Actor
> >
> > Subproperty of: E5 <#_E5_Event> Event. P12 <#_P12_occurred_in_the  
> > presence of (wa> occurred in the presence of (was present at): E77  
> > <#_E77_Persistent_Item> Persistent Item
> >
> > Superproperty of: E7 <#_E7_Activity> Activity. P14  
> > <#_P14_carried_out_by (performed)> carried out by (performed): E39  
> > <#_E39_Actor> Actor
> >
> > E67 <#_E67_Birth> Birth. P96 <#_P96_by_mother_(gave birth)> by  
> > mother (gave birth): E21 <#_E21_Person> Person
> >
> > E68 <#_E68_Dissolution> Dissolution. P99  
> > <#_P99_dissolved_(was_dissolved by)> dissolved (was dissolved by):  
> > E74 <#_E74_Group> Group
> >
> > E85 <#_E85_Joining> Joining.P143 <#_P143_joined_(was_joined by)>  
> > joined (was joined by): E39 <#_E39_Actor> Actor
> >
> > E85 <#_E85_Joining> Joining.P144 <#_P144_joined_with_(gained member  
> > by)> joined with (gained member by): E74 <#_E74_Group> Group
> >
> > E86 <#_E86_Leaving> Leaving.P145 <#_P145_separated_(left_ by)>  
> > separated (left by):E39 <#_E39_Actor> Actor
> >
> > E86 <#_E86_Leaving> Leaving.P146 <#_P146_separated_from_(lost member  
> > by> separated from (lost member by):E74 <#_E74_Group> Group
> >
> > P151 <#_P151_was_formed_1> was formed from: E74 <#_E74_Group> Group
> >
> > Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n)
> >
> > Scope note: This property describes the active or passive  
> > participation of instances of E39 Actors in an E5 Event.
> >
> > It connects the life-line of the related E39 Actor with the E53  
> > Place and E50 Date of the event. The property implies that the Actor  
> > was involved in the event but does not imply any causal  
> > relationship. The subject of a portrait can be said to have  
> > participated in the creation of the portrait.
> >
> > Examples:
> >
> > §  Napoleon (E21) participated in The Battle of Waterloo (E7)
> >
> > § Maria (E21) participated in Photographing of Maria (E7)
> >
> > In First Order Logic:
> >
> >P11(x,y) ⊃ E5(x)
> >
> >P11(x,y) ⊃ E39(y)
> >
> >P11(x,y) ⊃ P12(x,y)
> >
> > *NEW:*
> >
> > Scope note: This property describes the active or passive  
> > participation of instances of E39 Actors in an E5 Event.
> >
> > The known events in which an instance of E39 Actor has participated  
> > can be seen as stations of his course of life, his history. The E53  
> > Place and E52 Time-Span where and when these events happened provide  
> > us with constraints about the presence of the related E39 Actor in  
> > the past. Collective actors, i.e., instances of E74 Group, may  
> > physically participate in events via their representing E21 Persons  
> > only. The participation of multiple actors in an event is most  
> > likely an indication of their acquaintance and interaction.
> >
> > The property implies that the Actor was involved in the event but  
> > does not imply any causal relationship. For instance, someone having  
> > been portrayed can be said to have participated in the creation of  
> > the portrait.
> >
> > *OLD:*
> >
> >
> >  P12 occurred in the presence of (was present at)
> >
> > Domain: E5 <#_E5_Event> Event
> >
> > Range: E77 <#_E77_Persistent_Item> Persistent Item
> >
> > Superproperty of: E5 <#_E5_Event> 

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE: Issue Man-Made

[Florian Kräutli]

Yes






On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:24 PM +0200, "Martin Doerr"  
wrote:


















Dear All


The proposal is to
replace in all CRM labels "Man-Made" by "Human-Made"


Please vote "YES" if
you agree, "NO" if not,


by: Mai 10, 2019


Kind regards,


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 

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Florian Kräutli]

I would lean slightly in the direction of human-made. I think it helps 
to emphasise the human activity involved. As Jane mentioned, animals can make 
things to. 
If I remember correctly I already used the term ‘Human-Made Object’ to talk 
about E22 in this webinar 
(https://dh-tech.github.io/workshops/2018-10-15-CIDOC-CRMbyPractice/). 





  From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Christian-Emil 
Smith Ore 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 9:26 AM
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-" 

Dear all,





Martin's reflections are good. 






An extra comment: As we all know language use reflect social and power 
structures.  It is my view that one should try to make the language (English) 
in this case as gender neutral as possible. In many languages gender neutrality 
is difficult to obtain, perhaps not possible since it is integrated in the 
inflection morphology (e.g. Russian). 

 

However, there is no reason to make CRM labels gender specific except for 
mother and father.  In English ‘man’ can be used in the meaning ‘humanity’ and 
unspecified persons (as far as I understand it) which is not very good for 
gender equality.  Maybe one should try to replace ‘man’ by ‘human’.  This is a 
big task, and perhaps not possible in many groups (like the one represented by 
J R-M). In the group of CRM users it should not be problematic.

 

The question is:  Should we replace ‘man-made’ by ‘human-made’, or by ‘made’.  
‘human-made’ is already in use (‘The planet's average surface temperature has 
risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th 
century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other 
human-made emissions into the atmosphere’ NASA) and stress the fact that humans 
are involved. Rob  mentioned that ‘human made’ is quite a mouthful. Well, it 
will add one syllable and two letters which is not very much.​





Best,


Christian-Emil
From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Sent: 12 April 2019 19:47
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-" Dear 
All,
I would like to stay neutral in this issue. Personally, I do not believe that 
changing language is the way to make sure we respect men and women equally and 
give them equal chances, and it gives me a taste of distracting from what 
should be discussed. Therefore I am not happy about it.

I have the impression that even the etymology given in 
wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) is not complete. As a German 
speaker, I distinguish between "Mann" (male) and "Mensch" (human), and I 
suspect that the English "man" is actually a derivative of both, rendering it a 
homonym.  Homonymity would not imply a bias.
In Italian, French, Spanish the Latin term "vir" for adult male actually got 
lost in favor of derivatives of "homo" (human). Would be interesting to learn 
if this was actually connected with an increasing male domination or not, or if 
being "vir" became unimportant.

Man-Made appeared to me a good, established term, and we prefer established 
terms.
In German, we rendered it as "artificial object".

Asian languages such as Chinese and Japanese do not have default gender at all. 
Much better.
 Anyway, if some people think it makes a difference...
Cheers,
Martin

On 4/12/2019 7:38 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


 

Dear all,

 

On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose that the labels 
for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 Man-Made Thing be changed 
to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“.  In this day and age, I think we 
should recognize that inclusion and diversity are core features of community 
acceptance, and that including gender-biased language is alienating.

 

Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made Object, E25 changed 
to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing. 

 

The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is explicit in the 
ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors and carry out 
Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about non-humans making 
these.



This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our profile’s tracker 
for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be solved by changing the 
labels in the documentation, and thereby in the RDFS, rather than other RDF 
specific approaches such as minting new terms and using owl:sameAs to assert 
equality, or rebranding only in the JSON-LD serialization but persisting in 
other serializations.  The change is consistent, reduces the length of the 
class names, and is an easy substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is 
still the same. Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration 
of existing data has the same solution - just substitute the labels.

 

As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose to instead 
replace “Man-“ 

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Florian Kräutli]

  
  
  

Dear Pierre and all,
I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of its usage 
and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect (changing) knowledge 
contexts and we as a community should react to and respect developments in the 
world, and not decide based on our personal opinions about them. 
I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour of either 
suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with ‘human’. 
Best,
Florian





  




On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé" 
 wrote:










Dear all,
This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our times and 
most people (including me) generally avoid getting involved in such discussions 
- especially on social media where you would immediately get drowned in a flood 
of insults - and the result is that we have a feeling of consensus on the 
matter.
Now, we as a community might have a different point of view, starting with the 
knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man" (please consult the wikipedia 
page for a brief introduction). Can we please avoid this kind of discussions 
and leave it to Twitter and Facebook ?
Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling excluded here 
?)
Have a nice day,Pierre


 
On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios  
wrote:



I support the change of the English labels to:

E22 Made Object
E25 Made Feature
E71 Made Thing

And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through the SIG
list.

All the best,

Thanasis


On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose that the
> labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 Man-Made
> Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“.  In this day
> and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and diversity are
> core features of community acceptance, and that including gender-biased
> language is alienating.
>
> Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made Object, E25
> changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.
>
> The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is explicit in the
> ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors and carry
> out Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about non-humans
> making these.
>
> This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our profile’s
> tracker for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be solved by
> changing the labels in the documentation, and thereby in the RDFS,
> rather than other RDF specific approaches such as minting new terms and
> using owl:sameAs to assert equality, or rebranding only in the JSON-LD
> serialization but persisting in other serializations.  The change is
> consistent, reduces the length of the class names, and is an easy
> substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is still the same.
> Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration of
> existing data has the same solution - just substitute the labels.
>
> As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose to
> instead replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two additional characters,
> but a bit more of a mouthful.
>
> Many thanks for your engagement with this issue!
>
> 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 mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Using multiple instantiation

[Florian Kräutli]

Hi Martin,

I agree with the previous comments that the text is a bit dense and assumes a 
quite specific prior knowledge, i.e. it might be confusing to include it as a 
general guideline.

When I started with the CRM however, I somehow refrained from doing multiple 
instantiation. I don't think it is actively discouraged anywhere, but I was 
under the impression that I should rather find a more fitting entity than 
'overloading' one with several classes. So an indication that multiple 
instantiation can be ok, and a set of examples of where it makes sense might be 
useful to include somewhere. 

The example of using E33 to reach P72 is a good one I think. I also use it 
together with F22.

Best,

Florian

> On 6. Dec 2018, at 18:37, Martin Doerr  wrote:
> 
> Right. It is very dense. I tried to justify multiple instantiation in the 
> same text and give practical advice. I am not sure who finds it an issue. In 
> the principles of the CRM we describe it again, but may be here it would be 
> useful just to make people aware of it, and make an example in the Annex. Or 
> omit allover. 
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 12/6/2018 12:55 AM, van Leusen, P.M. wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>> Not sure if you would regard me as a typical reader, but I find this text 
>> very hard to read and understand without having at least one good worked 
>> example to guide me through it. It presupposes so much specialised knowledge 
>> about the various types of data management and knowledge organisation 
>> systems that, in its current state, only a small group of specialists might 
>> find it useful...
>> Martijn
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:13 PM Martin Doerr > > wrote:
>> This was a proposal by Robert :-). It may be useful for implementers not 
>> used to semantic technologies.
>> 
>> What do other people think?
>> 
>> On 12/5/2018 6:54 PM, Richard Light wrote:
>>> Martin,
>>> 
>>> Please explain why you think that this text is needed in the RDF 
>>> implementation guidelines. To me, it seems quite generic, and doesn't offer 
>>> specific guidance as to what implementors should do about the issue that 
>>> their existing systems may be incapable of expressing certain RDF features. 
>>> I think it would actually detract from the usefulness of the document, 
>>> because it would confuse and puzzle the typical reader.  [Maybe we need to 
>>> stop and think about who the 'typical reader' would be, and what they would 
>>> want from this document.]
>>> Richard
>>> On 05/12/2018 16:05, Martin Doerr wrote:
 Dear All,
 
 I propose this paragraph to be added to the implementation guidelines for 
 RDFS:
 
 "About implementing multiple Instantiation
 
 Knowledge representation models and more generally semantic networks 
 differ fundamentally in one aspect from data structures, such as XML, 
 Relational database schemata and data structures in all programming 
 languages, including the object-oriented one:
 
 ·   Knowledge representation starts with an item in the real world 
 regardless its nature, assigns an identifier to it in order to be able to 
 make assertions about it, and then accumulates statements (assertions, 
 propositions) about it.
 
 ·   Data structures start with a set of templates, a set of foreseen 
 kinds of statements dedicated to a particular category each (class, 
 entity), to be filled in by a user.
 
  
 Consequently, knowledge representation may assign multiple classes to a 
 given identifier without any problem. The associated processing software 
 will then allow for asserting for this identifier all properties 
 applicable to each assigned class. This process is called “multiple 
 instantiation. For instance, the “weapon” with all its characteristics may 
 also be a “ceremonial object”.
 
  
 A system based on data structures must create a different instance of the 
 respective templates for each class an item belongs to. It may later the 
 link the different instances describing aspects of the same thing, in 
 order to simulate the mechanism. In particular the very successful 
 “encapsulation principle” of object-oriented programming languages 
 requires dedicated data structures and constitutes a fundamental mismatch 
 with the Open-World modeling of semantic relationships (see, for instance 
 Schnase 1993). Fundamental to semantic data integration are also 
 superproperties, which are not provided by data structures either.
 
  
 The CRM as ontology relies heavily on multiple instantiation: Classes that 
 use to co-occur on things simultaneously “incidentally”, without being 
 associated with properties only applicable to the combination of such 
 classes, are not modelled individually as subclasses of multiple parent 
 classes. The latter would be called “multiple IsA”. To avoid 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear Martin,

many thanks for this! I would change, or remove, this part

"[...] marks the fact, that the maintaining team is in general neutral 
to the validity of the respective assertion [...]"

We see a good use-case for E13 in recording information that is wrong, or 
information that once used to be thought correct. For example, an artefact that 
was once thought to have been produced by Person A, but later it emerged that 
it was made by Person B. In such cases, we want to record the first piece of 
information using E13, along with its source, to indicate that we are aware of 
it and to allow people to find it even when they search based on outdated 
knowledge. We as the maintaining team are therefore not neutral to the validity 
of the assertion.

All best,

Florian

> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 
> 
> Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
> To: crm-sig 
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Here the old scope note:
> E13 Attribute Assignment
> Subclass of: E7 Activity
> Superclass of:  E14 Condition Assessment
> E15 Identifier Assignment
> E16 Measurement
> E17 Type Assignment
> 
> Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making assertions 
> about properties of an object or any relation between two items or concepts.
> 
> This class allows the documentation of how the respective assignment came 
> about, and whose opinion it was. All the attributes or properties assigned in 
> such an action can also be seen as directly attached to the respective item 
> or concept, possibly as a collection of contradictory values. All cases of 
> properties in this model that are also described indirectly through an action 
> are characterised as "short cuts" of this action. This redundant modelling of 
> two alternative views is preferred because many implementations may have good 
> reasons to model either the action or the short cut, and the relation between 
> both alternatives can be captured by simple rules.
> 
> In particular, the class describes the actions of people making propositions 
> and statements during certain museum procedures, e.g. the person and date 
> when a condition statement was made, an identifier was assigned, the museum 
> object was measured, etc. Which kinds of such assignments and statements need 
> to be documented explicitly in structures of a schema rather than free text, 
> depends on if this information should be accessible by structured queries.
> =
> Here my new proposed scope note:
> 
> E13 Attribute Assignment
> Subclass of: E7 Activity
> Superclass of:  E14 Condition Assessment
> E15 Identifier Assignment
> E16 Measurement
> E17 Type Assignment
> 
> Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making assertions 
> about properties of an object or any relation between two items or concepts. 
> The type of the property asserted to hold between two items or concepts can 
> be described by the property P2 has type.
> 
> This class allows for the documentation of how the respective assignment came 
> about, and whose opinion it was. Note that all instances of properties 
> described in a knowledge base are the opinion of someone. Per default, they 
> are the opinion of the team maintaining the knowledge base. This fact must 
> not individually be registered for all  instances of properties provided by 
> the maintaining team, because it would result in an endless recursion of 
> whose opinion was the description of an opinion. Therefore the use of E13 
> Attribute Assignment marks the fact, that the maintaining team is in general 
> neutral to the validity of the respective assertion, but registers another 
> ones opinion and how it came about.
> 
> All properties assigned in such an action can also be seen as directly 
> relating the respective pair of items or concepts. Multiple use of E13 
> Attribute Assignment may possibly lead to a collection of contradictory 
> values. All cases of properties in this model that are also described 
> indirectly through a subclass of E13 Attribute Assignment  are characterised 
> as "short cuts" of a path via this subclass. This redundant modelling of two 
> alternative views is preferred because many implementations may have good 
> reasons to model either the action of assertion or the short cut, and the 
> relation between both alternative can be captured by simple rules.
> 
> In particular, the class describes the actions of people making propositions 
> and statements during certain museum procedures, e.g. the person and date 
> when a condition statement was made, an identifier was assigned, the museum 
> object was measured, etc. Which kinds of such assignments and statements need 
> to be documented explicitly in structures of a schema rather than free text, 
> depends on if this information should be accessible by structured queries.
> Best,
> 
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling bound manuscript copies

[Florian Kräutli]

Great! I think we can work with that. I'll let you know how we proceed.
Thank you both for your help!

Florian

> On 27. Oct 2017, at 11:37, Pierre Choffé  wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, a P46_is_composed_of could link the F5 (codex) to its parts F5 
> (manuscripts).
> 
> Pierre
> 
> On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 11:28 "Florian Kräutli" <">"Florian Kräutli"  
> > wrote:
> Dear Pierre,
> 
> many thanks for this! I think seeing this as two processes makes sense.
> 
> I sketched your description as I was reading along: 
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/Xhd6yxZEpQldwqHK2 
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/Xhd6yxZEpQldwqHK2>
> Is that correct?
> 
> The part where we struggled in our own scheme is the relation between the 
> physical instance of the codex and the physical copies of the manuscripts 
> that are bound within them. Through the relation between the expression of 
> the F17 and the expressions of the original manuscript, the relation on the 
> content level is clear. But how can we make the relation between material 
> copies (the ? link in the diagram).
> 
> Now that I look at it, should the F22 of the F17 incorporate the F24 
> Publication Expression of the copy of the original manuscript? I guess that 
> would make the connection between a specific physical copy and the codex.
> 
> All best,
> 
> Florian
> 
> 
> On 27. Oct 2017, at 11:01, Pierre Choffé  <mailto:choffepie...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Florian, dear Christian-Emil,
> 
> I hope this finds you well. Just a few words about this interesting 
> discussion if I may. If I understand well: 
> the codices we are talking about are collections  of manuscripts
> there can be multiple versions of the same codex
> there can exist other codices incorporating either part of, or all of the 
> manuscripts plus other manuscripts, thus differentiating themselves from the 
> above
> am I wrong if I say we have 2 “industrial" production processes, one of 
> manuscripts on the one hand, and one of codices on the other hand? These 
> should be described separately.
> 
> It starts off simple: we have an author creating a Work (F15) realising an 
> Expression (F22), and an original manuscript (F4 Manifestation Singleton) 
> carrying the Expression.
> 
> Then at some point we have copies of the original manuscript. This is the 
> first industrial process, resulting in the production of F5 Items (new 
> manuscripts) R6 carrying a F24 Publication Expression, itself P165 
> incorporating the original F22 Self-Contained Expression (or not, or not 
> exactly, but this is another discussion).
> 
> The second one is more complex. Being a “collection”, I would suggest that 
> the codex is an F17 Aggregation Work (subclass of F14 and F16), which 
> realises an F22 Self-Contained Expression (the expression of the collection) 
> which itself P165_incorporates as many F22 as there are manuscripts. Note 
> that a manuscript is a carrier, so it can carry one or multiple Expressions 
> (e.g. poems).
> 
> There we have a second industrial process resulting in the production of F5 
> Items (the codices) R6 carrying a F24 Publication Expression, itself P165 
> incorporating the original F22 Self-Contained Expression (the expression of 
> the collection).
> 
> If I have time I will try to make a schema, but I hope this is clear (and 
> correct!).
> 
> I am sure there are complex cases, where the same manuscript can be found in 
> completely different codices, or where manuscripts differ, etc. but I think 
> this modelling allows for describing all sorts of situations. Or not?
> 
> Have a nice day, 
> 
> Pierre
> 
> On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 09:45 "Florian Kräutli" <">"Florian Kräutli"  
> > wrote:
> Dear Christian-Emil,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. I will check back on this, but as far as I understood, 
> the manuscripts in a codex have been purposely bound together. There can 
> exist several codices with the same arrangement of manuscripts.
> 
> I think in this context we could see the manuscripts a result of an 
> industrial production. They are manual copies, hence are not unique in the 
> way that I understand a F4 Manifestation Singleton to be unique (both 
> intellectually and physically)
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Florian
> 
>> ___ 
>> 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> 
>> 
> 
> On 26. Oct 2017, at 19:29, Christian-Emil Smith Ore  <mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling bound manuscript copies

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear Pierre,

many thanks for this! I think seeing this as two processes makes sense.

I sketched your description as I was reading along: 
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Xhd6yxZEpQldwqHK2 
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/Xhd6yxZEpQldwqHK2>
Is that correct?

The part where we struggled in our own scheme is the relation between the 
physical instance of the codex and the physical copies of the manuscripts that 
are bound within them. Through the relation between the expression of the F17 
and the expressions of the original manuscript, the relation on the content 
level is clear. But how can we make the relation between material copies (the ? 
link in the diagram).

Now that I look at it, should the F22 of the F17 incorporate the F24 
Publication Expression of the copy of the original manuscript? I guess that 
would make the connection between a specific physical copy and the codex.

All best,

Florian

> On 27. Oct 2017, at 11:01, Pierre Choffé  wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Florian, dear Christian-Emil,
> 
> I hope this finds you well. Just a few words about this interesting 
> discussion if I may. If I understand well: 
> the codices we are talking about are collections  of manuscripts
> there can be multiple versions of the same codex
> there can exist other codices incorporating either part of, or all of the 
> manuscripts plus other manuscripts, thus differentiating themselves from the 
> above
> am I wrong if I say we have 2 “industrial" production processes, one of 
> manuscripts on the one hand, and one of codices on the other hand? These 
> should be described separately.
> 
> It starts off simple: we have an author creating a Work (F15) realising an 
> Expression (F22), and an original manuscript (F4 Manifestation Singleton) 
> carrying the Expression.
> 
> Then at some point we have copies of the original manuscript. This is the 
> first industrial process, resulting in the production of F5 Items (new 
> manuscripts) R6 carrying a F24 Publication Expression, itself P165 
> incorporating the original F22 Self-Contained Expression (or not, or not 
> exactly, but this is another discussion).
> 
> The second one is more complex. Being a “collection”, I would suggest that 
> the codex is an F17 Aggregation Work (subclass of F14 and F16), which 
> realises an F22 Self-Contained Expression (the expression of the collection) 
> which itself P165_incorporates as many F22 as there are manuscripts. Note 
> that a manuscript is a carrier, so it can carry one or multiple Expressions 
> (e.g. poems).
> 
> There we have a second industrial process resulting in the production of F5 
> Items (the codices) R6 carrying a F24 Publication Expression, itself P165 
> incorporating the original F22 Self-Contained Expression (the expression of 
> the collection).
> 
> If I have time I will try to make a schema, but I hope this is clear (and 
> correct!).
> 
> I am sure there are complex cases, where the same manuscript can be found in 
> completely different codices, or where manuscripts differ, etc. but I think 
> this modelling allows for describing all sorts of situations. Or not?
> 
> Have a nice day, 
> 
> Pierre
> 
> On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 09:45 "Florian Kräutli" <">"Florian Kräutli"  
> > wrote:
> Dear Christian-Emil,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. I will check back on this, but as far as I understood, 
> the manuscripts in a codex have been purposely bound together. There can 
> exist several codices with the same arrangement of manuscripts.
> 
> I think in this context we could see the manuscripts a result of an 
> industrial production. They are manual copies, hence are not unique in the 
> way that I understand a F4 Manifestation Singleton to be unique (both 
> intellectually and physically)
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Florian
> 
>> ___ 
>> 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> 
>> 
> 
> On 26. Oct 2017, at 19:29, Christian-Emil Smith Ore  <mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.no>> wrote:
> 
> A small question about a codex containing several manuscripts: Is there any 
> relationship between the manuscripts (that is, the text they carry) or is it 
> simply a handy way to handle several manuscripts?  The latter is the case for 
> some Nordic Medieval codices where the codix is simply a batch of non related 
>  texts.  
> 
> In the recent CRM SIG meeting it was a long dicussion if a manuscript could 
> be seen as a result of a (production) plan and thus should be an item of an  
> F3 Manifestation Product Type. 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling bound manuscript copies

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear Christian-Emil,

Thanks for your reply. I will check back on this, but as far as I understood, 
the manuscripts in a codex have been purposely bound together. There can exist 
several codices with the same arrangement of manuscripts.

I think in this context we could see the manuscripts a result of an industrial 
production. They are manual copies, hence are not unique in the way that I 
understand a F4 Manifestation Singleton to be unique (both intellectually and 
physically)


Best wishes,

Florian

> On 26. Oct 2017, at 19:29, Christian-Emil Smith Ore  
> wrote:
> 
> A small question about a codex containing several manuscripts: Is there any 
> relationship between the manuscripts (that is, the text they carry) or is it 
> simply a handy way to handle several manuscripts?  The latter is the case for 
> some Nordic Medieval codices where the codix is simply a batch of non related 
>  texts.  
> 
> In the recent CRM SIG meeting it was a long dicussion if a manuscript could 
> be seen as a result of a (production) plan and thus should be an item of an  
> F3 Manifestation Product Type.  If so what is the Manifestation Singleton 
> realising the original expression of the codex manuscript. Would you claim 
> that the codices are a result of an idustrial production, mutatis mutandis​?
> 
> Best,
> Christian-Emil
> From: Crm-sig  <mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Florian Kräutli 
> mailto:fkraeu...@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de>>
> Sent: 26 October 2017 15:27
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
> Subject: [Crm-sig] Modelling bound manuscript copies
>  
> Dear all,
> 
> We're working on a CIDOC-CRM/FRBRoo model to represent a collection of 
> Islamic manuscripts
> 
> It is organised into Codices. Further we have the concepts of Witness and 
> Text. A Witness is a manuscript – a hand produced copy – of a Text. A Codex 
> contains several Witnesses bound together.
> 
> A Codex can exist several times, similar to a copy of a book, and appear in 
> catalogues of other collections. However, the copies of the Codices are 
> hand-made, binding together several Witnesses.
> 
> Our difficulty when modelling this comes due to the definition of F5 Item and 
> F4 Manifestation Singleton in FRBRoo. It would make sense to model our copy 
> of a Codex as an F5 Item, being an example of F3 Manifestation Product Type. 
> However, the scope note of F5 states that it is an object produced through an 
> industrial process, e.g. printing. The physical texts that are bound together 
> in a codex are however manual transcriptions. The definition of F4 
> Manifestation Singletons for the Witnesses is however also not appropriate, 
> as we know several transcriptions of the same text exist. F5 Item would be 
> more appropriate for our Witnesses, but does it apply in our case?
> 
> Another difficulty is when modelling the Codex as a binding together of 
> physical manuscripts and the texts they hold. Our direction is to model a 
> Codex as F15 Complex Work, that is realised in a F24 Publication Expression 
> carried by an E84 Information Carrier. The Texts are then F14 Individual Work 
> (as members of F15) realised in F22 Self-Contained Expression (as components 
> of F24). The Witnesses are  E84 Information Carriers that carry said F22 and 
> P48 compose the E84 Information Carrier that carries the F24. We did not use 
> F4 or F5 here. Does this make sense? (See sketch: 
> https://oc.rz-berlin.mpg.de/owncloud/index.php/s/AXJLkRmv0E00ecM 
> <https://oc.rz-berlin.mpg.de/owncloud/index.php/s/AXJLkRmv0E00ecM>)
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Florian

[Crm-sig] Modelling bound manuscript copies

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear all,

We're working on a CIDOC-CRM/FRBRoo model to represent a collection of Islamic 
manuscripts

It is organised into Codices. Further we have the concepts of Witness and Text. 
A Witness is a manuscript – a hand produced copy – of a Text. A Codex contains 
several Witnesses bound together.

A Codex can exist several times, similar to a copy of a book, and appear in 
catalogues of other collections. However, the copies of the Codices are 
hand-made, binding together several Witnesses.

Our difficulty when modelling this comes due to the definition of F5 Item and 
F4 Manifestation Singleton in FRBRoo. It would make sense to model our copy of 
a Codex as an F5 Item, being an example of F3 Manifestation Product Type. 
However, the scope note of F5 states that it is an object produced through an 
industrial process, e.g. printing. The physical texts that are bound together 
in a codex are however manual transcriptions. The definition of F4 
Manifestation Singletons for the Witnesses is however also not appropriate, as 
we know several transcriptions of the same text exist. F5 Item would be more 
appropriate for our Witnesses, but does it apply in our case?

Another difficulty is when modelling the Codex as a binding together of 
physical manuscripts and the texts they hold. Our direction is to model a Codex 
as F15 Complex Work, that is realised in a F24 Publication Expression carried 
by an E84 Information Carrier. The Texts are then F14 Individual Work (as 
members of F15) realised in F22 Self-Contained Expression (as components of 
F24). The Witnesses are  E84 Information Carriers that carry said F22 and P48 
compose the E84 Information Carrier that carries the F24. We did not use F4 or 
F5 here. Does this make sense? (See sketch: 
https://oc.rz-berlin.mpg.de/owncloud/index.php/s/AXJLkRmv0E00ecM)

Best wishes,

Florian

Re: [Crm-sig] Pages reproduced as spreads

[Florian Kräutli]

Apologies for having inadvertently split this discussion in two threads. I hope 
this answer shows up in the right place.

Thank you Dominic and Christian-Emil. This is really useful.

Dominic, you pointed to another part of the problem which I haven't asked about 
here, but which appears in a different area of our model. The question of how 
do I specify the page where an expression appears in a PDF?

Martin and George, I hope you don't mind if I share your recommendation on this 
question here:

7) How to refer to page?

The distinction between pages in the physical work and the digital work was 
first pointed to.

1) One page in the publication expression. Pages separate below phrase 
boundaries. Therefore they are units at the symbolic level and parthood should 
be expressed using P106

2) One in the digital image

If you want to go pages on pdf, would best to use a media indexing Annotation 
from 3DCoform
METS  construct gets an ID and has coordinates in media object2



> On 10 Mar 2017, at 16:29, crm-sig-requ...@ics.forth.gr wrote:
> 
> Send Crm-sig mailing list submissions to
>   crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   crm-sig-requ...@ics.forth.gr
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   crm-sig-ow...@ics.forth.gr
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Crm-sig digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Crm-sig Digest, Vol 122, Issue 8 (Dominic Oldman)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:24:50 +
> From: Dominic Oldman 
> To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore ,
>   "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Crm-sig Digest, Vol 122, Issue 8
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi Florian,
> 
> Here is an off line discussion that we should have put on the list.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> D
> 
> 
> orcid.org/-0002-5539-3126
> 
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore <
> c.e.s@iln.uio.no> wrote:
> 
>> Do so, and send my regards. Please incorproate the following example:
>> 
>> 
>> To create excerpts is common activity in lexicography and history. An
>> excerpt is indeed a fragement of a text. The  corresponding expression is a
>> fragment expression.  See for example a paperslip for the word 'shovelfork'
>> (used to prepare la (small) field instead of ploughing.  The text is a
>> fragment of a longer text dealing with somebody childhood memories
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.edd.uio.no/setelarkiv/setel1963769.jpg?
>> 
>> 
>> The entire paper slip represents a self-contained expression where a
>> expression fragment is incorporated (in the corresponding work)
>> 
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Christian-Emil
>> --
>> *From:* Dominic Oldman 
>> *Sent:* 10 March 2017 13:32
>> 
>> *To:* Christian-Emil Smith Ore
>> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Crm-sig Digest, Vol 122, Issue 8
>> 
>> Hi Christian,
>> 
>> I note that this didnt go on the list - Can I post this to the list as I
>> think it is important generally.
>> 
>> D
>> 
>> orcid.org/-0002-5539-3126
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Dominic Oldman 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Although I think then the scope note could be much clearer on E23 because
>>> it tends to suggest fragments isolated from the whole whereas in this case
>>> the section still resides within a whole. Although the scope note does
>>> state "excerpts" I still think this could be stated far more clearly with
>>> less ambiguity -  if it does mean that these excerpts can be identified
>>> sections of the information object within a whole text.
>>> 
>>> Can we put this on the agenda for the next meeting?
>>> 
>>> D
>>> 
>>> 
>>> orcid.org/-0002-5539-3126
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore <
>>> c.e.s@iln.uio.no> wrote:
>>> 
 It is not necessarily so that the text printed on a page is a
 self-contained expression, it is in general a F23 Expression Fragment ?
 
 
 Best
 
 Christian-Emil
 
 
 F22 Self-Contained Expression
 
 This class comprises the immaterial realisations of individual works at
 a particular time that are regarded as a complete whole. The quality of
 wholeness reflects the intention of its creator that this expression should
 convey the concept of the work. Such a whole can in turn be part of a
 larger whole.
 
 
 Inherent to the notion of work is the completion of recognisable
 outcomes of the work. These outcomes, i.e. the Self-Contained Expressions,
 are regarded as the symbolic equivalents of Individual Works, which form
 the atoms of a complex work. A Self-Contained Expression may contain
 expressions or parts of expressions from other 

Re: [Crm-sig] Crm-sig Digest, Vol 122, Issue 8

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear Martin,

many thanks for your input!

Our question at the moment is simply, does a page in the PDF represent one or 
two pages of the book?

Later on, we might have more specific questions that will require us to define 
the relationships between these two page identifiers (in the physical book and 
in the PDF) more explicitly. We would then also need to manually assess each 
PDF as, for instance, we can not assume that page n in a book corresponds to 
page n/2 in a double-spread PDF. A PDF might contain some additional pages with 
information about the digitisation process.

For now we however only need a binary answer: double-spread yes or no.

All the best,

Florian


> On 8 Mar 2017, at 11:00, crm-sig-requ...@ics.forth.gr wrote:
> 
> Send Crm-sig mailing list submissions to
>   crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   crm-sig-requ...@ics.forth.gr
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   crm-sig-ow...@ics.forth.gr
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Crm-sig digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Pages reproduced as spreads (martin)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:24:17 +0200
> From: martin 
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Pages reproduced as spreads
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> Dear Florian,
> 
> There is no model without a question. Pages of books constitute a 
> partitioning of an
> information object. Each page number can be seen as an identifier. 
> Paragraphs belong to an alternative partitioning system. The 
> reproduction has its own particioning, the scanned double pages.
> Each scanned image represents, actually also incorporates, the text of 
> two pages of the reproduced.
> Between alternative partitionings, one can define includes/overlaps 
> relations.
> 
> If this is elegant, depends on what queries or functions you'd like to 
> support.
> 
> Best,
> 
> martin
> 
> On 7/3/2017 1:36 ??, Florian Kr?utli wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I have a collection of Books (F5) that have been reproduced (F33) as PDFs 
>> (E84).
>> In some cases, books have been digitised as spreads i.e. one page in the PDF 
>> represents two pages in the book.
>> 
>> Is there an elegant way to model this?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Florian
>> ___
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> --
>  Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
>  Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>|  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
>  |
>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   |
>  |
>  Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl   |
> --
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> 
> --
> 
> End of Crm-sig Digest, Vol 122, Issue 8
> ***

Re: [Crm-sig] Pages reproduced as spreads

[Florian Kräutli]

Hi Pierre,

Yes, that's basically it. I don't want to get too specific about things if it's 
not necessary.

Best,

Florian

> On 7 Mar 2017, at 15:18, Pierre Choffé  wrote:
> 
> 
> Thank you Florian. So, basically what you want to do is signal that a PDF 
> contains single-page or double-page spreads, is that it? Or do you want your 
> model to be very specific about all the points you mention?
> 
> Pierre
> 
> On mar. 07 mars 2017 at 15:13 "Florian Kräutli" <">"Florian Kräutli"  
> > wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
> 
> Thanks for your reply!
> 
> I will try to give you a bit more context. At the centre of the model is the 
> book. However, researchers are primarily working with its PDF reproduction.
> 
> They want to be able to specify the number of pages in a book, and later also 
> want to specify the page range for each chapter in the book.
> 
> The PDFs are retrieved from different sources and sometimes contain an extra 
> page with source information. In addition, as is usually the case, the page 
> numbers in the PDF do not correspond to the page numbers in the book.
> 
> Because we cannot safely say how many pages are in the book, we only enter 
> the number of pages in the PDF. Also when we locate the chapters in the book, 
> we refer to the page number in the PDF and not to the book.
> 
> Later on we would like to be able to say how many pages a chapter occupies in 
> a book. The same chapter will appear in several books, therefore this can 
> vary for the same chapter.
> 
> Our problem is that when PDFs reproduce a double-page spread on a single 
> page, chapters in the PDFs will appear to be half as long as in the book. 
> Therefore, we want to be able to tell if the PDF contains single-page or 
> double-page spreads.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Florian
> 
> 
> On 7 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Pierre Choffé  <mailto:choffepie...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Florian,
> 
> What is the granularity level of your present model? The book?
> 
> What kind of information would you like to retrieve and for what usage? What 
> problem are you trying to solve?
> 
> Are there only 2 possible cases? (either globally for the book 1PDF=1page or 
> 1PDF=2pages, but never “in some cases a mix of both”)
> 
> All best,
> 
> Pierre
> 
> On mar. 07 mars 2017 at 12:36 "Florian Kräutli" <">"Florian Kräutli"  
> > wrote:
> Dear all, 
> 
> I have a collection of Books (F5) that have been reproduced (F33) as PDFs 
> (E84). 
> In some cases, books have been digitised as spreads i.e. one page in the PDF 
> represents two pages in the book. 
> 
> Is there an elegant way to model this? 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Florian 
> ___ 
> 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>

Re: [Crm-sig] Pages reproduced as spreads

[Florian Kräutli]

Hi Pierre,

Thanks for your reply!

I will try to give you a bit more context. At the centre of the model is the 
book. However, researchers are primarily working with its PDF reproduction.

They want to be able to specify the number of pages in a book, and later also 
want to specify the page range for each chapter in the book.

The PDFs are retrieved from different sources and sometimes contain an extra 
page with source information. In addition, as is usually the case, the page 
numbers in the PDF do not correspond to the page numbers in the book.

Because we cannot safely say how many pages are in the book, we only enter the 
number of pages in the PDF. Also when we locate the chapters in the book, we 
refer to the page number in the PDF and not to the book.

Later on we would like to be able to say how many pages a chapter occupies in a 
book. The same chapter will appear in several books, therefore this can vary 
for the same chapter.

Our problem is that when PDFs reproduce a double-page spread on a single page, 
chapters in the PDFs will appear to be half as long as in the book. Therefore, 
we want to be able to tell if the PDF contains single-page or double-page 
spreads.

All the best,

Florian

> On 7 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Pierre Choffé  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Florian,
> 
> What is the granularity level of your present model? The book?
> 
> What kind of information would you like to retrieve and for what usage? What 
> problem are you trying to solve?
> 
> Are there only 2 possible cases? (either globally for the book 1PDF=1page or 
> 1PDF=2pages, but never “in some cases a mix of both”)
> 
> All best,
> 
> Pierre
> 
> On mar. 07 mars 2017 at 12:36 "Florian Kräutli" <">"Florian Kräutli"  
> > wrote:
> Dear all, 
> 
> I have a collection of Books (F5) that have been reproduced (F33) as PDFs 
> (E84). 
> In some cases, books have been digitised as spreads i.e. one page in the PDF 
> represents two pages in the book. 
> 
> Is there an elegant way to model this? 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Florian 
> ___ 
> 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] Pages reproduced as spreads

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear all,

I have a collection of Books (F5) that have been reproduced (F33) as PDFs (E84).
In some cases, books have been digitised as spreads i.e. one page in the PDF 
represents two pages in the book.

Is there an elegant way to model this?

Best,

Florian