Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
Dear Christina-Emile,
> Many cultural phenomena are better documented by free text essays.
Of course. Paraphrasing Borges ("Del rigor en la ciencia” 1946), the most
accurate ontology of the world is the world itself, including also this
ontology (as part of the world) in such world ontology.
> CRM [...] should be based on documented practice in the various disciplines
> and a be a formalization of this documented practice.
The practice of attaching intangible values to physical things to confirm that
these are heritage assets is well documented by UNESCO.
For example, the criteria for defining "Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco
and Other Franciscan Sites” a World Heritage Site include:
“Criterion (vi) Being the birthplace of the Franciscan Order, Assisi has from
the Middle Ages been closely associated with the cult and diffusion of the
Franciscan movement in the world, focusing on the universal message of peace
and tolerance even to other religions or beliefs."
All UNESCO WHS criteria include similar statements relating the asset (or
“property”, as they call them) to intangible aspects.
I appreciate you and Martin qualified my question as “interesting”. As with
most questions, the answer would probably be even more interesting, but
unfortunately I have none.
Best,
Franco
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL
Chief Technology Officer 4CH
Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
> Il giorno 10 mar 2023, alle ore 08:42, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig
> ha scritto:
>
>
> It is as I wrote, an interesting question. The idea behind the development of
> the CRM is that it should be based on documented practice in the various
> disciplines and a be a formalization of this documented practice. It is not
> meant to be a general formal description of everything going on in the
> entire world. The use of fformal ontologies tends to push the documentation
> into structuralism. Structuralism is well suited as a basis for many things,
> but not all. Many cultural phenomena are better documented by free text
> essays.
>
> Best,
> Christian-Emil
>
> From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci
> via Crm-sig
> Sent: 10 March 2023 07:48
> To: Martin Doerr
> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
> Thank you all for your comments and contributions.
>
> None of the solutions proposed so far convinces me.
>
> Intangible heritage (Tango, for instance) is not the cumulation of many/all
> related activities/actors (Tango performances, Tango dancers, etc), which
> instead are related because they are all manifestations/performers of the
> same abstract concept.
>
> Rebetiko is even more difficult to characterize as it involves a particular
> lifestyle and individuals - the mangas in the past, perhaps now more a mood
> than a social class - and is often associated with the bouzouki. But of
> course it is not the mere addition of all this.
>
> I am not suggesting to study such concepts in greater detail, it may be
> off-topic.
>
> I think however that it is impossible to document monuments without
> addressing their intangible component. This came up when dealing with
> conservation: it is not just a matter to maintain their physical state,
> preserving their E3 Condition State which according to its scope note
> "describes the prevailing PHYSICAL condition of any material object”. Opening
> a Mac Donald in the Coliseum would not alter too much its E3, but would
> probably depreciate its value as a monument.
>
> best
>
> Franco
>
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Franco Niccolucci
> Director, VAST-LAB
> PIN - U. of Florence
> President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL
> Chief Technology Officer 4CH
>
> Editor-in-Chief
> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
>
> Piazza Ciardi 25
> 59100 Prato, Italy
>
>
>
>
> > Il giorno 9 mar 2023, alle ore 20:23, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I suggest to make a case study with Rebetiko. It is a relatively confined
> > tradition and living. We have access to a lot of material here in Greece.
> > By the way, we met a young lady from India who came to Greece and has
> > learned to play Rebetiko.
> >
> > I think we should look at phenomena and people influencing each other,
> > protagonists, etc., of varying types appearing in a cultural space and
> > time, in particular concentrating at specific places and times. People
> > meeting in t
Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
Thank you all for your comments and contributions. None of the solutions proposed so far convinces me. Intangible heritage (Tango, for instance) is not the cumulation of many/all related activities/actors (Tango performances, Tango dancers, etc), which instead are related because they are all manifestations/performers of the same abstract concept. Rebetiko is even more difficult to characterize as it involves a particular lifestyle and individuals - the mangas in the past, perhaps now more a mood than a social class - and is often associated with the bouzouki. But of course it is not the mere addition of all this. I am not suggesting to study such concepts in greater detail, it may be off-topic. I think however that it is impossible to document monuments without addressing their intangible component. This came up when dealing with conservation: it is not just a matter to maintain their physical state, preserving their E3 Condition State which according to its scope note "describes the prevailing PHYSICAL condition of any material object”. Opening a Mac Donald in the Coliseum would not alter too much its E3, but would probably depreciate its value as a monument. best Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL Chief Technology Officer 4CH Editor-in-Chief ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 9 mar 2023, alle ore 20:23, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig > ha scritto: > > Dear All, > > I suggest to make a case study with Rebetiko. It is a relatively confined > tradition and living. We have access to a lot of material here in Greece. By > the way, we met a young lady from India who came to Greece and has learned to > play Rebetiko. > > I think we should look at phenomena and people influencing each other, > protagonists, etc., of varying types appearing in a cultural space and time, > in particular concentrating at specific places and times. People meeting in > these performances and carrying the idea forward. A certain "density" keeps > it alive, like a species surviving. I agree with Franco. > > Best, > > Martin > > On 3/9/2023 8:00 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I think this is quite overstretching what an activity is. Of course we can >> make quick and dirty use of any class. I cannot imagine, how an "All Tango >> Performances" could be associated with a clear identity, unity and >> distinction from others. This would mean that any type of activity becomes >> an activity, isn't it? All specializations and generalizations would then be >> identical with part-of of activities? >> >> How would you then give an account of different strands of such traditions? >> This model virtually denies evolution and variation. I think that needs >> serious thought and a model which provides a much subtler relation between >> an idea, its execution and its evolution. >> >> Note, that any type is a Conceptual Object. Creating Tango as an E55 Type is >> a creation. I'd suggest to look at the new properties connecting Types with >> periods in which they appear. The challenge is, for me, not to provide a >> place to say "Tango is here", but to relate individual activities, >> performances, music, fashions, costumes etc along lines of evolution, >> variation and cross-fertalization. >> >> Best, >> >> Martin >> >> On 3/9/2023 6:33 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: >>> I'm posting the following response text from Steve because the mailing list >>> software tosses his messages out: >>> >>> Just a quick thought. As you mention a set of individual performances (E7 >>> Activities) you could say that the individual performances (E7 Activity: >>> performance of Tango on particular day/time and at a particular place) P9i >>> forms part of a master E7 Activity (All Tango Performances). E7 Activity >>> (All Tango Performances) P16 used specific object E28 Conceptual >>> Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango). E7 Activity (All Tango >>> Performances) P14 carried out by E39 Actor(Tango Community) >>> You could also say: >>> E28 Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango) P94i was created by >>> E65 Creation P14 carried out by E39 Actor(Tango Community) >>> This would make the community both the creator and performer of the >>> intangible heritage: which I believe is the current "best practice". >>> The timespan of the creation is of course open-ended as these are "living"
[Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
In the UNESCO List of World Intangible Heritage many items (= E28 Conceptual Object) are referred to specific gatherings of people - commonly named “communities” in everyday's language - such as: Tango -> Argentina & Uruguay Rebetiko -> Greece Opera dei pupi (puppet theatre) -> Italy (Sicily) These geographic names in reality mean the people, the inhabitants (maybe not all of them): Argentinians, Uruguayos, Greeks, Sicilians i.e. the social groups who are the custodians/performers of these traditions. So two classes are involved 1) The group (Argentinians, Greeks, etc.) = E39 Actor 2) The conceptual object representing the intangible heritage (Tango, Rebetiko, etc.) = E28 Conceptual Object Note that intangibile heritage is NOT an activity, it is the abstraction of a set of activities and the way in which they are traditionally performed, which manifests through events/activities i.e. individual performances. Which property - if any - can be used to relate such E39 Actors to the corresponding E28? Thank you for any help on the above. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL Chief Technology Officer 4CH Editor-in-Chief ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] issue 597: define irreflexivity and asymmetry
Dear Christian-Emile two quick comments. 1) In the discursive parts, probably you swapped the examples: > 1) A relation R is asymmetric if there are no pair x,y such that x relates > to y and at the same time y relates to x. 'less than' (<) is a good example > of an irreflexive relation. > 2) A relation R is irreflexive if no x is related to itself. 'less than’ (<) > is a good example of a asymmetric relation. While both good examples are correct, they are - in my opinion - quoted in the wrong place. I would expect that when defining asymmetric you would mention an asymmetric relation as example; same for irreflexive. - 2) I am not so comfortable with the example in the Definition of Asymmetric, for which you quote P46. I checked the scope note of P46 and it does not clarify if the part is a “proper” part: "This property associates an instance of E18 Physical Thing with another instance of Physical Thing that forms part of it. The spatial extent of the composing part is included in the spatial extent of the whole.” (from the P46 scope note) Inclusion (part-ness), in set theory, does not exclude that A is included in A, or in other terms that A is a subset of A (part of A, in common speech), To quote an authoritative source () wikipedia states the following: In mathematics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics>, set <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)> A is a subset of a set B if all elements <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(mathematics)> of A are also elements of B; B is then a superset of A. It is possible for A and B to be equal; if they are unequal, then A is a proper subset of B. The relationship of one set being a subset of another is called inclusion (or sometimes containment). So either the scope note of P46 should clarify that the part is a “proper” part; or self-inclusion (“self part-ness") is allowed, but then your example of P46 does not work.I would rather go for this second case, but perhaps common sense is for the other one and I am biased by an ancient and long-lasting mathematical infection. Best, 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 7 set 2022, alle ore 13:08, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig > ha scritto: > > > Dear all, > Please find my hw below and in the attachment. > > Best, > Christian-Emil > > > > The issue is about how to define asymmetric and irreflexive. > > > Background > > Usually the prefix 'non-' in a compound negates the main part. So > 'non-symmetric' should have the same meaning as 'not symmetric'. > > From Latin the prefix 'in-' has a similar function. So irreflexive means > 'not reflexive'. > > From Greek the prefix 'a-/an-' has a similar function: asymmetric is > a+symmetric (as Ancient Greek ἀσυμμετρία (asummetría), “disproportion, > deformity”, wiktionary.org). > > This is not very helpful since 'non-symmetric', 'asymmetric' and 'not > symmetric' all have the same general meaning. However, this is not the case > for specialized language in a given domain. In set theory the terms > 'asymmetric' and 'irreflexive' have a specialized meaning stronger than just > 'not ...': > > 1) A relation R is asymmetric if there are no pair x,y such that x relates > to y and at the same time y relates to x. 'less than' (<) is a good example > of an irreflexive relation. > > 2) A relation R is irreflexive if no x is related to itself. 'less than’ (<) > is a good example of a asymmetric relation. > > In the formal parts of the definition of CRM we use first order logic and > follow standard definitions in set theory. In CRM 'P is not reflexive' means > that at least one x is not related via P to itself. My suggestion is that we > use 'irreflexive' and 'asymmetric' as in common set theory: > A) reflexive: for a property P with domain and range E, P(x,x) for all > instances x in E. > > B) irreflexive: for a property P with domain and range E, P(x,x) for no > instance x in E. > > C) non-reflexive/’not reflexive’: For a property P with domain and range E, > P(x,x) is not true for one or more instances x in E. > > B implies C, so non-reflexive/’not reflexive’ is weaker. > > > > > Proposal: > > Change from noun to adjective; add two new entries in the term definition > list. > > > asymmetric > asymmetric is defined in the standard way found in mathematics or logic: > A property P is asymmetri
Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 510 --HW
Can somebody kill this flow of spam? Correctly set automatic answer systems should not reply to lists, but perhaps list masters could ban those who don’t. otherwise I will need to set ALL incoming SIG emails to spam to avoid having more leave-of-absence notice by this guy Best wishes to all (except the spammer) Franco Il giorno gio 1 set 2022 alle 19:21 richard.smiraglia--- via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> ha scritto: > IKOS is on holiday! We will return to the office on 6 September 2022. Have > a great summer! > > On Aug 31, 2022, at 4:54 PM, richard.smiraglia--- via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > > > IKOS is on holiday! We will return to the office on 6 September 2022. > Have a great summer! > > > > On Aug 31, 2022, at 4:50 PM, richard.smiraglia--- via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > > > > IKOS is on holiday! We will return to the office on 6 September 2022. > Have a great summer! > > > > On Aug 31, 2022, at 3:07 PM, richard.smiraglia--- via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > > > > IKOS is on holiday! We will return to the office on 6 September 2022. > Have a great summer! > > > > On Aug 31, 2022, at 2:33 PM, richard.smiraglia--- via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > > > > IKOS is on holiday! We will return to the office on 6 September 2022. > Have a great summer! > > > > On Aug 31, 2022, at 9:23 AM, richard.smiraglia--- via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > > > > IKOS is on holiday! We will return to the office on 6 September 2022. > Have a great summer! > > > > On Aug 30, 2022, at 11:22 PM, E.Tsoulouha via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > on the link below you may find the WD for issue 510. It contains links > to the HW by Martin and Pavlos for I7 Belief Adoption > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aHZ90jX3m0Rz8P7KBuM2DOsm2Xa_IB5-IB0esnanoss/edit?usp=sharing > > > > Best > > > > E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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 > > ___ > > 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 > ___ > 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] more on explanations
Sorry, I hit “send” too early. Add to my previous comments the following ones. In the third and fourth bullet points, collections are addressed. But the third point considers “cultural heritage collections” and the fourth “museum collections”, actually in the same copy-paste sentence. Is this difference intentional, or again a slip? I imagine in both cases “cultural heritage collections” must be used. By the way, in several passages, including one in the first bullet point, the verb “should” is used, If these statements are prescriptive, my rule is must = to be done in any case with no exceptions should = preferably to be done, but OK also if not may = optional, do it if you like In general, several “should” would need to be replaced with “must”. F. 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 ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] a (very minor) note
With other colleagues, I am translating into Italian the CIDOC CRM documentation. This forced me to (or if you prefer, it gave me the opportunity of) reading it with great attention to minute details. On page 10 of the Introduction I found a couple of things that may need to be changed: both are in the bottom of the page describing the CRM Intended Scope, where some expressions used in such description are explained in greater detail. 1) In the first bullet point, the term “scientific and scholarly documentation” is explained as compliant to the quality level “expected and required by museum professionals and researchers in the field.” What about archaeologists, architectural historians etc.? I would replace this statement with “expected and required by heritage professionals and researchers in the field.”, which would also expand the “field” beyond museology as implied by the other formulation, which is also contradictory with the much wider ambit listed in the second bullet. 2) In the second bullet point the meaning of the term “available documented and material evidence” is explained. Actually, a different expression was used in the previous text, being clarified here; “available documented and empirical evidence”. When defining a term, I think it is preferable to avoid using different albeit equivalent expressions. Moreover, the equivalence of “empirical” and “material” is debatable: according to my Oxford dictionary empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic material = denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit I may agree with “empirical” but I am not sure I would agree with “material”. As you can see, this is a fussy comment. But the devil is in the details... and in this case a naughty commenter (not my case) might think that both are Freudian slips :) 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 ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling a simulated view on a physical space
Dear Martin, Florian, a nice problem indeed. Just to add complication, it seems to me that this is just a special case of determining the viewpoint from which an artist or a photographer produced an image of a landscape, a monument or other landmark. Florian's reverse engineering process determining the place from which the image was taken, either with a camera or by human activity as painting, sketching, and so on, is indeed a mathematical process availing of the software Florian indicated, or of other computational methods. This process may still have some approximation depending on the correspondence of the image to reality and to the quality of the other data used, e.g. the 3D model. Coming to the complication, here are two examples where the same process is not based on maths. 1) Pianta della Catena of Florence, 1470. See it here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pianta_della_Catena#/media/File:Francesco_Rosselli_(attribution)._Pianta_della_Catena,_1470.jpg As you can see from the image, the person who produced this perspective map is also included in the picture (it is the small person dressed in red in the bottom right corner), drawing it from an easily identifiable hill. The mathematical approach may not work in this case because in 550 years the city skyline has changed and the drawing was probably imperfect. Nevertheless, identifying the place is almost certain, but we must accept that the drawer’s representation is faithful as regards the place where he did the job, and not just a symbolic indication that the map was made “at bird’s eye” from a high place. A later map (1594) by Stefano Buonsignori mentions the hill from which it was taken - the same as the above-mentioned one - but gives no clue about the *exact* place. Unfortunately I have no reference to good images for this map except this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Pianta_del_buonsignori%2C_dettaglio_138_porta_a_san_friano.jpg which is notable only because the gate is next to my house :) In sum: an old map depicts the point of view; a later one, but still ancient, mentions the place in a generic way; direct observation confirms the place, which appears obvious from the drawings perspective, if you know the town and the surrounding hills (I do). No computer image processing may identify the place because interpretation of the human figure (case 1) or understanding the map title (case 2) are required. There are moreover studies identifying the place with some greater accuracy as being an open space close to a monastery on the said hill. Is this still a data Evaluation? 2) The second case concerns the interpretation of art historians. For example I found that for a painting (1494) by Albrecht Dürer titled “The mill” https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer#/media/File:Durer,_il_mulino.jpg an art historian stated that “the painter was standing on the high northern bank of the Pegnitz river, looking towards south”. No idea why this art historian states so. Dürer painted also many watercolour paintings in Trentino, and there is now a cultural route titled “Albrecht Dürer Path” where visitors may stop at designated points and look at the landscape from the (reconstructed) viewpoints of the painter https://www.trentino.com/en/leisure-activities/mountains-and-hiking/hiking-in-autumn/albrecht-duerer-path/ I don’t think they used computers to create it. In conclusion, maybe the viewpoint reconstruction is a more general process: an Evaluation if it can be done/supported mathematically, something else (?) if computation is not feasible but other means can be used with reasonable trustworthiness. Is there a superclass fit for all cases? Best 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 27 ott 2021, alle ore 19:21, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig > ha scritto: > > Dear Florian, > > Nice Problem! Actually I do not regard it a Simulation, because it does not > introduce theories to extrapolate into the future or to fit to observational > data for theory testing. I think it is simply data Evaluation, which results > in an estimate for a place. I'd regard the calculated viewpoint as a > declarative E53 Place P168 defined by : the calculated value, which P189 > approximates the phenomenal place of the image taking activity. The direction > of taking an image is not modeled in the CRM yet as well as some other > parameters of observations. > > In my opinion, the image itself can be seen as a measurement of optical > qualities of a section of a physical feature, the surface of earth, or an > observation in the case of painting. Both would "P138 represent" this > section. In
Re: [Crm-sig] CRMSci O19 Property Labels Minor Correction?
Dear George, all “during” sounds fine. In my opinion, not because “at” is locative and implies a place, which is not true: see e.g. "at present", "at midnight", "at some point in time". But because it implies precision, an exact point in time, at the time granularity level assumed, so that “at 5PM” means that arriving at 17:01 you are late. Events always have a duration, even milliseconds. Thus, since the range of the inverse property is event, “during (event X)” sounds correct, “at (event X)” would not. “During" is also used in the scope note “... encountered or observed as present during the event”. The story would be different - and “at” correct - if the range were an E61 Time Primitive. Best 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 22 ott 2021, alle ore 15:28, Eleni Tsoulouha via Crm-sig > ha scritto: > > Hi all, > > Not that i m 100% confident concerning my intuitions for English, but I think > that *during* is more suited for relations btw temporal entities (where the > one serves as a temporal frame of sorts for the other) OR for relations btw > temporal entities and their location-times (aka timespans). an encountered > object is neither of those things, so maybe encountered in would do best?? > > Btw., i think that this reading is more consistent with how we've been using > the adverbial throughout the CRM (again, i may be wrong). > > all the best, > > Eleni > > > > On 10/22/2021 3:59 PM, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote: >> >> +1 to changing it from at, which definitely implies location. >> >> object_encountered_during seems good to me, thank you Melanie! >> >> Rob >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 8:38 AM melanie.roche--- via Crm-sig >> wrote: >> Dear George, >> >> I share your concerns. Being unfamiliar with CRMsci in general and O19 in >> particular, when I first read your mesage I immediately assumed that the >> inverse property pointed to a place. As a non-native English speaker, I >> agree that there is a very strong locative flavour to the preposition "at", >> and it would be totally counter-intuitive to associate it with an event. I >> also feel the same applies (though less strongly) to "in". >> >> If we want to exclude any kind of locative flavour, would the preposition >> "during" be appropriate, or would it only work for some events but not all? >> >> Best, >> >> Mélanie. >> >> >> >> De :"George Bruseker via Crm-sig" >> A :"crm-sig" >> Date :22/10/2021 13:43 >> Objet :[Crm-sig] CRMSci O19 Property Labels Minor Correction? >> Envoyé par :"Crm-sig" >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> I am manually correcting some ontology files (horror) and changing the >> nomenclature from the previous names for O19 which were: >> >> has found object >> (was object found by) >> >> up until version 1.2.6 of the document. >> >> Then it changed, rightly (mostly), to: >> >> encountered object >> was object encountered at >> >> which is how it has been ever since. >> >> So, what's my problem? The inverse property label sounds like we named it >> poorly? Particularly the preposition 'at' has a locative flavour that to me >> would indicate that the object pointed at would be a place. The object >> pointed at, however, is of course the encounter event. >> >> I do not remember if we made the choice above on purpose or if this is just >> a mistake, but reading it now it strikes me as not the best choice. >> >> I think typically we would use 'by' (which is also problematic since sounds >> like it should point to an actor) or maybe 'in' which again sounds slightly >> locative, although might work better with an event. >> >> Anyhow, does anyone else see this as a problem or is it just me? >> >> Best, >> >> George___ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> Découvrez toute la programmation culturelle de la rentrée à la BnF >> Pass BnF lecture/culture : bibliothèques, expositions, conférences, concerts >> en illimité pour 15 € / an – Achete
Re: [Crm-sig] HW 496 - Recommending Types
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 > comparable structure like Dimension, Appellation and Identifiers. Then the > common Measurement Units, Currencies, Languages. We use AAT for all of these. > > The MAY bucket is just things that we've found ourselves looking up and want > to mak
Re: [Crm-sig] Relationship CRMDig & PREMIS OWL
Dear Miel the project PARTHENOS has developed a CRM-compliant extension of CRMdig which could be useful for you, called the PARTHENOS Entity Model (PEM). It adds several useful entities such as Project, Service, Software etc. further developing and specializing concepts already defined in CRMdig. It does not address explicitly the audiovisual domain, which could be an interesting add-on easily developed. PEM is fully described in the project deliverable D5.1, available from here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2668433 For any further information/clarification you can contact directly the deliverable authors or myself. Best wishes 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 27 apr 2021, alle ore 13:25, Miel Vander Sande via Crm-sig > ha scritto: > > Hi all, > > I'm starting a datamodelling excersise at my organisation. We are an > audiovisiual archive in Flanders, Belgium; we digitize, preserve and > disseminate audiovisual material from Flemish cultural organisations. > I was looking into way to model our digitization and preservation flows. We > use PREMIS to a certain extent, but the material we ingest is (or rather: > could be) described using CIDOC CRM, hence CRMdig is quite interesting. > > Does anyone have some input on: > - what the current status of CRM dig is? > - whether there are efforts to align PREMIS/PROV to CRMdig? > > Best, > > Miel > > -- > > > > > Miel Vander Sande > Data architect > > meemoo vzw | Kleindokkaai 9a | 9000 Gent | België | www.meemoo.be > T: +32 9 298 05 01 | M: +32 496 83 21 29 > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote
and you may have noticed that I did not vote - I just wanted to stimulate reflection, and I will not bore you anymore. I will reply Martin directly. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus Technology Director 4CH Editor-in-Chief ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 23 mar 2021, alle ore 19:50, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig > ha scritto: > > Dear Martin, Christian-Emil, all, > > In order not to block a development that seems to be largely consensual, and > considering that my veto apparently violates the SIG rules, I withdraw it and > simply vote NO. > > If the majority thinks that the problem I have pointed to is not a problem > and that the inconsistency between previous versions of the CRM and the new > one in relation to the substance of this class is not an issue, especially > with respect to monotonicity, I personnally have nothing to add. > > With all my best wishes > > Francesco > > > > Le 23.03.21 à 19:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit : >> Dear Francesco, >> >> Your concerns well respected, please let me explain a few things: >> >> Firstly, this e-vote is not about the reduction of the range of P39 from E1 >> CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. >> >> The reduction was decided in the last CRM-SIG with good majority after >> considering all pros and cons. >> >> Following our rules, a decision once made by the CRM-SIG can only be undone >> by raising a new issue, providing new additional arguments. >> >> Therefore, the use of the VETO right should not be used to undo an orderly >> decision taken by the SIG. >> >> Nevertheless, let me >> >> On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, and >>> more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class without >>> changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the nominal >>> monetary value of a collection of coins" is now excluded. >>> >> Firstly, >>> >>> >>> So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the surface >>> of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place for >>> representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot be >>> measured ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check : "E54 Dimensions are >>> associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension. So not every >>> class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70. >>> However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM >>> Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a >>> dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent >>> that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be measured. >>> I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to resolve >>> this inconsistency." >>> >>> Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical things >>> is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an abstraction >>> from observable things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such >>> evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 >>> Measurement." >>> >>> after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the >>> issue) we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite >>> different substance than the long period one. >>> >>> Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract. >>> >>> >>> >>> My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is Attribute >>> Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I partly agree but it >>> seems to me that, given the radical change of substance, the consistency of >>> the information produced before version 7.??? will be lost. >>> >>> >>> >>> So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new substance, >>> restricted in the mentioned sense, and deprecate E16 if wished but leaving >>> it as is for the sake of consistency of legacy information and monotonicity >>> ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Given
Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote
I strongly agree with Francesco. Some time ago I wrote a paper about reliability assessment, suggesting that it could be considered a sort of measurement, perhaps a subclass of E16. It was not a proposal for the CRM SIG, just considerations about the fact that at present there is no satisfactory attribute to qualify reliability. This issue is very important for example to re-use data according to the R part of the FAIR principles. Such “attribute” needs to be machine-actionable and available for composition if data undergo several re-use passages: in sum, it has to be quantitative and preferably numeric, in the broad scope of E60 Number. Thus if one re-processes data that are 80% reliable also the results will be 80% reliable, in the best case, or less. Another processing with an error of 70% will produce new data reliable at 56%. I remember a famous project where archive documents were digitized, OCR-ed and then mined with NLP: nobody ever calculated the reliability of the final results. So the topic is not irrelevant, nor just a matter of gut feeling. This concept was, indeed, an Attribute Assignment - quite obviously as it is its superclass so every measurement is an attribute assignment. But what should be pursued, in my opinion, is the right balance between (i) the proliferation of classes and properties and (ii) an excessive generalization. I am a bit scared by (i) 200 properties as well as by (ii) assigning too wide roles to very general entities. Occam stated "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” and this in my opinion might possibly apply to the 200 properties. I would add that also unnecessary (praeter necessitatem) simplification should be better avoided, like in this case putting everything into a generic attribute assignment except some privileged activities that have a name (and a life) of their own. A more philosophical argument would consider that there is no such thing as “(pure) observation” as opposed to "abstraction": any observation is influenced by the observer. Besides Heisenberg's indetermination principle, it is a much debated issue. The Galilean method, also known as the scientific one, and the historical method, both converge and are to be used in cultural heritage. So the justification that measurement is observation does not simplify, rather it complicates the decision. Regards Franco By the way, for those who don’t know Latin, Occam’s razor means: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”. Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus Technology Director 4CH Editor-in-Chief ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 23 mar 2021, alle ore 14:20, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig > ha scritto: > > Dear all, > as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, and > more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class without > changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the nominal monetary > value of a collection of coins" is now excluded. > > So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the surface > of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place for representing > a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot be measured ? > > Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check : "E54 Dimensions are > associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension. So not every > class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70. > However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM Entity, > meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a dimension, it can > be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent that an entity that > cannot have dimensions can still be measured. > I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to resolve > this inconsistency." > Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical things > is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an abstraction > from observable things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such > evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 > Measurement." > after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the issue) > we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite different > substance than the long period one. > Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract. > > My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is Attribute > Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I partly agree but it > seems to me that, given the radical change of substance, the consistency
Re: [Crm-sig] CRM translation working group
I am interested, please let me know the meeting details in due time. To our Japanese colleagues: in one of my projects, we have a team from NARA, the contact person is Yuichi Takata, ytak...@nabunken.go.jp They are currently preparing the mapping of their heritage data to a CIDOC CRM compatible ontology, so perhaps Yuichi or one of his colleagues might wish to help you, if useful. Best 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 9 mar 2021, alle ore 15:13, Philippe Michon > ha scritto: > > Hi, > > I am delighted to see so much enthusiasm for the translation working group > following yesterday's discussion. > > > Since some people who would like to collaborate on the initiative may not > have been with us yesterday, I would like to quickly introduce the topic > again here. > > The official version 7.1 was released last week and will be the basis for > submission to ISO. As such, the CRM SIG invites the community to contribute > to the creation or update of the translations of the model documentation. > > In order to ensure efficient and quality translations, the CRM SIG believes > that it is important to define clear guidelines and protocols. To do this, it > was decided to set up a committee to reflect on and propose a first version > of this documentation. Yesterday's discussion stems from the proposal made by > George Bruseker > (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-58-how-to-organize-the-translation-of-the-model). > > It was also proposed that the committee focus, in particular, but not > exclusively, on the following aspects: > > 1. Content Guidelines > > 2. Interoperability Standard and Versioning Tools > > 3. Communication and Validation Protocols > > If you are interested in participating in this initiative, do not hesitate to > express your interest here before March 19th. Then we could schedule a > meeting somewhere in April. > > Thank you all for your interest, > Philippe > > > > > Le mar. 9 mars 2021 à 07:24, Sakiko Kawabe via Crm-sig > a écrit : > Hi, we Japanese community also decided to organize some collaborative works > for translation of the newest version of CIDOC CRM into Japanese. > We would start with a simple reading circle where we read the English version > together to understand the concept and terms comprehensively in our language, > while the protocols and guidelines for translation are arranged in the > working group. > > Best, > Sakiko Kawabe > National Museum of Japanese History > > 2021年3月9日(火) 20:38 Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig : > Hi George > > you proposed the issue, so you are expected to coordinate the team :) > > Meanwhile, I sent out a circular letter about the CRM translation into > Italian and already got (overnight!) enough qualified volunteers to start the > job. > > So let’s go! > > 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 9 mar 2021, alle ore 11:23, George Bruseker via Crm-sig > > ha scritto: > > > > I would like to follow from the overall perspective (protocols, guidelines). > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:45 AM Massoomeh Niknia via Crm-sig > > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Please count on me as well for the Persian version. > > > > Kind regards, > > Massoomeh > > > >> On 9. Mar 2021, at 10:30, Дарья Юрьевна Гук via Crm-sig > >> wrote: > >> > >> Count me in as well for Russian version. > >> > >> > >> 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/listi
Re: [Crm-sig] CRM translation working group
Hi George you proposed the issue, so you are expected to coordinate the team :) Meanwhile, I sent out a circular letter about the CRM translation into Italian and already got (overnight!) enough qualified volunteers to start the job. So let’s go! 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 9 mar 2021, alle ore 11:23, George Bruseker via Crm-sig > ha scritto: > > I would like to follow from the overall perspective (protocols, guidelines). > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:45 AM Massoomeh Niknia via Crm-sig > wrote: > Hi, > > Please count on me as well for the Persian version. > > Kind regards, > Massoomeh > >> On 9. Mar 2021, at 10:30, Дарья Юрьевна Гук via Crm-sig >> wrote: >> >> Count me in as well for Russian version. >> >> >> 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 > ___ > 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] CRM translation working group
Please count me in 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 ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Propose New Issue: Guidelines and Protocols for Translating CIDOC CRM
dge established by it) decides and the decision by an officially established Canadian referee for effective bilingualism? Finally, copyright. The copyright statement in the title page of CRM documentation "Copyright © 2003 ICOM/CRM Special Interest Group” in my opinion sounds a bit old-fashioned and unpleasant, there are nowadays more appropriate licensing schemes that allow public open use, give appropriate recognition to authors, and protect the moral rights of those involved in the work, people and organizations, while avoiding any unauthorized commercial exploitation. In the era of Open Science it sounds a bit conservative. The same should apply to translations. As you may have understood from this long email, I am interested in the adventure, both in preparing the general framework and in supporting a translation into Italian. If useful, we can advertise the initiative through various networks, to inform those potentially interested in the job. Best 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 26 feb 2021, alle ore 23:31, Philippe Michon > ha scritto: > > Dear all, > > As this issue arises from a discussion between George and us at the Canadian > Heritage Information Network (CHIN), I just wanted to confirm that we are > greatly interested in this issue. > > The main reason is that we must have a French version in order to be able to > use CIDOC CRM within our organization. Indeed, we have rules on bilingualism > that oblige us to have a quality French equivalent (that meets the quality > and maintenance standards of governmental agencies) in some strict time > limits of the standards to which we refer. > > We are contributing to the French translation initiative presented by Anaïs. > In addition, for administrative reasons, we are in the process of setting up > a specific translation process for the Canadian team. > > Of course, we will share with you as soon as possible the documents that we > will make publicly available to our editors and partners. Here is a list of > what we plan to share in the coming year: > > • Google Docs translation templates > • Protocol to convert Google Doc Templates in Markdown (our goal is to > publish on Github Pages) > • Stylesheet > • Index of CIDOC CRM entities (translated) > • Update protocol (e.g. 7.0 to 7.1) > • Spreadsheet for keeping track of the typos in the English version > • List of the translation challenges > • Best practices for translation > > We hope that our work will serve as a foundation for the development of > general recommendations and protocols in order to further democratize CIDOC > CRM. > > We look forward to participating in discussions concerning this issue. > > Best regards, > > Philippe > > > > Le jeu. 25 févr. 2021 à 12:23, Anaïs Guillem a > écrit : > Hi CRM-lovers, > I would like to follow up on George's email about the translation. In October > 2019, a group of French archaeologists and CH specialists expressed an > interest to translate the latest version and the future version 7 in order to > disseminate CIRDOC CRM more easily. Now, the project of translation is > international (France, Belgium and Canada) and a collaborative effort. It is > mostly inspired by Wiki contributions and everything is done in Gitlab with > version control. The group meets (via Zoom) once a month to establish some > priorities and discuss the different issues. > > The project is open to anyone interested in contributing to the translation > in French: you just need a Huma-Num account. > https://gitlab.huma-num.fr/bdavid/doc-fr-cidoc-crm > > The translation files could be used for translations in other languages. The > diagrams are also in the process of translation. The translation issues are > discussed in the Gitlab issues. The how-to is explained in the Wiki section > of the gitlab project. > > It would be very interesting to know if there are currently other > translations projects in other languages to compare the process and > methodology. The git repository could be cloned if another group wants to > translate the ontology in another language. > > Have a nice afternoon, > Cheers > Anais > > > Le jeu. 25 févr. 2021 à 08:23, George Bruseker a > écrit : > Dear all, > > With the advent of CIDOC CRM 7.1, a new stable community version (aimed for > ISO approval) of the CIDOC CRM is established. This is the occasion for the > broader community wishing to implement the standa
Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption
I wrote on this topic a paper with Sorin Hermon, some time ago (2017) "Expressing Reliability with CIDOC CRM", IJDL, 18(4), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-016-0195-1 It’s available from the IJDL, from the ACM DL, and from me as a self-stored paper. In short, it shows how to deal with trust in the Re-use framework of FAIR without using CRMinf. The necessary concepts are just subclasses and subproperties of existing ones. They receive special names just for the sake of clarity, but they could just be typized e.g. (Z denotes the new classes): Z1 Reliability Assessment = E16 Measurement + has type “reliability assessment" Z2 Reliability = E54 Dimension + has type “reliability" Sooner or later, I should re-examine the issue in light of the recent discussions. In my opinion, “trust" should be machine-actionable otherwise Re-use becomes a purely human activity, but an undoable one as we don’t have enough time to read everything and take the necessary decisions, discarding fake news, as Gardin stated 21 years ago (*). Trust is a chain and at some point one of the referees needs to be “a honourable man” (**), whose assessment is automatically applied to the data together, and if too low it automatically discredits the data and avoids re-use or warns against it. There are other divertissements of mine on the topic I’ll gladly share with those interested. Franco (*) Gardin, J.-C. “Calcul et narrativité dans les publications archéologiques”, Archeologia e Calcolatori, 10, 1999, 63-78. Open access. (**) as everybody knows, this quote actually referred to an untrustworthy person Best 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 8 lug 2020, alle ore 15:10, Olivier Marlet > ha scritto: > > Dear All, > The notions of trust and adoption of beliefs are very interesting because > they are directly related to the Re-use of FAIR principles. It is certainly a > notion on which the ARIADNEplus working group will work in the sub-task > 4.4.12 "CIDOC-CRM mapping for Excavation archives" dealing with the link > between data and publications. > Best, > > Olivier > > De: "Martin Doerr" > À: "crm-sig" > Envoyé: Mercredi 8 Juillet 2020 13:29:49 > Objet: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Scope Note of CRMinf -> Belief Adoption > > Dear All, > > The Scope Note of I7 will be corrected. > > Best, > > Martin > > On 7/8/2020 12:46 PM, BOTTINI Thomas wrote: > Dear all, > Dear Stephen, George, Martin and Olivier, > > It appears that I misread the CRMinf documentation, and thought that every I2 > Belief should be associated to a I7 Belief Adoption. I was not able to deduce > from the scope notes of I7 that it " is the acceptance of somebody else's > conclusion about some state of affairs". Stephen's wording is extremely clear. > > And thank you George for pointing out that S4 is a subclass of I1. > This leads to the very simple pattern: S4 ---[J2]---> I2 > > Olivier, thank you very much for the wonderful conceptual and graphical > resources you have posted. They will be very useful for our further work. > > Thank you all for helping me better understand CRMinf > > —— > Thomas Bottini > Institut de Recherche en Musicologie — IReMus UMR CNRS 8223 > > > De : Crm-sig au nom de Olivier Marlet > > Date : mercredi 8 juillet 2020 à 11:19 > À : "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" > Objet : Re: [Crm-sig] CRMinf -> Belief Adoption > > Dear Thomas, > > For the logicist publication of the Rigny archaeological excavations, we used > the CRMinf to model the principle of logicist argumentation according to > Jean-Claude Gardin, which is rather convenient since the CRMinf is directly > inspired by this theory. > In our case, we have distinguished 3 processes: 1/ argumentation based on > observation or comparison data; 2/ external reference data (what is known and > acquired elsewhere, taken from a bibliographical source for example); 3/ > arguments built from previous conclusions. > > > 1/ For a proposition based on observation data or comparison data, mapping > could be: > S15_Observable_Entity → O11_was_described_by → S6_Data_evaluation (IsA > I5_Inference_Making IsA I1_Argumentation) → J2_conclued_that → I2_Belief → > J4_that → I4_Proposition_Set > I5_Inference_Making → J3_applies → I3_Inference_Logic > > 2/ For a proposition based on reference data, mapping could be: > E31_Document (IsA E73_Information_Object) → J7_is_evidence_for → > I7_Belief_Adoption (IsA I1_Argumentation) → J6_adopted → I2
Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling the number of sheets used to print a book
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
Re: [Crm-sig] and now something completely different - a modelling question
The issue comes from the fact that the said President is not the president of the mountains, lakes, plains etc that form Switzerland; there are two “Swiss Confederation”s here: more precisely, there is Switzerland (the territory) and the Swiss Confederation (the political institution ruling Switzerland). In other words, Ms. Sommaruga is the current President of the Helvetic Confederation, not of the corresponding land, ruled by the Confederation, which is a Space-time volume. BTW, it is moreover incorrect the statement that the “President of the Swiss Confederation” is a Group; it should be stated that the “Head of State of the Swiss Confederation” is a Group, as according to the Swiss Constitution this function is jointly assigned to the Federal Council, a Group. The President is an individual (a Person) who chairs the Council for one year as a primus inter pares. In sum, there are two different concepts associated with a country: a) the territory, possibly variable in time, which is rightfully modelled as a Space-time volume b) the state, which depends on the political and legislative structure and possibly on the international recognition; you choose how to model it, perhaps as a Group? It has a beginning and an end. E.g. France roughly corresponds in time to the same territory but the state of France has been different: monarchy, then republic, then empire, then monarchy and finally republic again; such changes had no direct relationship with the changes of the corresponding territory. Conversely, there may be changes in the territory with no change in the state, for example the Kingdom of Italy before and after each World War, same state, king and Constitution but different territory. In 1946 Italy became a Republic, political change but same territory. Such difference is also evidenced by different names: Switzerland versus Confoederatio Helvetica, Italy versus Italian Republic etc. There is an obvious relationship between b) and a). But they are not the same: if a) changes b) may remain the same and viceversa. A President/King/citizen is president/etc. of b), not of a). Examples where currently only one of a)/b) exists: . the Sovereign Military Order of Malte (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta) is recognized by 107 states so it exists as a state but has no territory on which it exerts its power. To the best of my knowledge this is a unique case. - the Republic of North Cyprus has a territory on which it exerts its control but is not internationally recognized (except by Turkey) so does not exist as a state. 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 20 gen 2020, alle ore 12:23, Christian-Emil Smith Ore > ha scritto: > > Dear all > As an example of an instance of E24 Group one find "The President of the > Swiss Confederation" which is ok. How should one link this instance to the > Swiss Confederation which is modelled as a instance of E4 Period? > > Best > Christian-Emil > ___ > 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] P72 has Language
Dear all, having somehow started this discussion in a hot August evening, let me remind you that the initial question was: "When describing biographical information [in an archive] 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. 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.” I understand these bios consist in a text, and metadata are added to it as instances of various CIDOC-CRM classes. The question was how to indicate in such metadata the knowledge of a language as reported in the bio: so not a real quality of the person, but a fact documented. My suggestion was to use E74 Group. I always prefer to use what is already available and avoid the unnecessary proliferation of classes and properties, in my opinion there are already (more than) enough. But in doing so I try to maximize expressiveness, as otherwise one class (E1 CRM Entity) and one property (P2 has type) would be sufficient for the whole world: P2 is not a jack-of-all-trades. Reportedly, the Group solution seemed to please the person who made the question. I don’t know if the "language spoken" is an information usually taken into account in CH; but in this case it was by the archivist, otherwise no question would have been aaked. Best regards 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 14 ott 2019, alle ore 22:39, Detlev Balzer ha > scritto: > > Dear George, Martin, > > this discussion made me curious whether or not I can confirm George's > assertion that such statements are common in the cultural heritage field. > > EAC-CPF does have a language element, which is, however, only used to > indicate in which language the name of a person or corporation is expressed. > > GND, the authority file for libraries in German-speaking countries, has a > Language entity which is used for making statements about the "field of > study" of a person. Other predicates for the person-language pair of entities > do occur, but these are obvious data entry errors. > > Having extracted person-related data from a dozen or more cultural heritage > projects, I don't remember any example where languages spoken or known by > somebody have been considered in any other sense than relating to the > documented activity, rather than to the (possibly un-instantiated) capacity > of the person. > > Of course, this is just an observation that doesn't prove anything. > Personally, I would tend towards Martin's view that there is little, if > anything, to be gained by defining such kind of statement in a reference > model such as the CIDOC CRM. > > Best wishes, > Detlev > >> George Bruseker hat am 14. Oktober 2019 um 19:45 >> geschrieben: >> >> >> Dear Martin, >> >> The conversation began with a use case from an archive. I just inform that >> this is also found in all the projects I work on for memory institutions. >> They find it in scope, so looking further afield for what anthropologists >> do doesn't seem like a necessary step? Though highly fascinating! >> >> Best >> >> George >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 6:58 PM Martin Doerr wrote: >> >>> Dear George, All, >>> >>> As a second thought: >>> >>> I think documentation formats such as LIDO are an adequate place to add >>> such useful properties to characterize items in a more detailed way, we >>> would not put in the CRM analytically. Shapes, colors etc. being typical >>> examples. >>> >>> Question: Are there formats from the archival world that use to describe >>> the languages people speak? EAD CFP? >>> Libraries are interested in the languages someone publishes in, not >>> speaking. >>> >>> What are the anthropologists registering? Would they be interested in >>> languages learned at school, or rather in the language used for >>> communication in a typical group? Would they document pe
Re: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Scope note and examples of E41 Appellation
There’s a repetition in the examples. Probably only the Venus de Milo deserves it :) F. 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 12 ott 2019, alle ore 20:30, Martin Doerr ha > scritto: > > Dear All, > > With the deletion of many subclasses of E41 Appellation here my suggestion > for adjustment: > > NEW: > > E41 Appellation > > Subclass of: E90 Symbolic Object > > Superclass of: E35 Title > > E42 Identifier > > > Scope note: This class comprises signs, either meaningful or not, or > arrangements of signs following a specific syntax, that are used or can be > used to refer to and identify a specific instance of some class or category > within a certain context. > > > Instances of E41 Appellation do not identify things by their meaning, even if > they happen to have one, but instead by convention, tradition, or agreement. > Instances of E41 Appellation are cultural constructs; as such, they have a > context, a history, and a use in time and space by some group of users. A > given instance of E41 Appellation can have alternative forms, i.e., other > instances of E41 Appellation that are always regarded as equivalent > independent from the thing it denotes. > > > Even though instances of E41 Appellation are not words of a language, > different language groups may use different appellations for the same thing, > such as the names of major cities. Some appellations may be formulated using > a valid noun phrase of a particular language. In these cases, the respective > instances of E41 Appellation should also be declared as instances of E33 > Linguistic Object. Then the language group using the appellation can be > declared with the property P72 has language: E56 Language. > > > Instances of E41 Appellation may be used to identify any instance of E1 CRM > Entity and sometimes are characteristic for instances of more specific > subclasses E1 CRM Entity, such as for instances of E52 Time-Span (for > instance “dates”), E39 Actor, E53 Place or E28 Conceptual Object. Postal > addresses and E-mail addresses are characteristic examples of identifiers > used by services transporting things between clients. > > > Even numerically expressed identifiers in continua are also regarded as > instances of E41 Appellation, such as Gregorian dates or spatial > coordinates, even though they allow for determining the time or spot or are > they identify by a known procedure starting from a reference point and by > virtue of that play a double role as instances of E59 Primitive Value. > > > E41 Appellation should not be confused with the act of naming something. Cf. > E15 Identifier Assignment > > Examples: > > § "Martin" > > § "the Forth Bridge" > > § "the Merchant of Venice" (E35) (McCullough, 2005) > > § "Spigelia marilandica (L.) L." [not the species, just the name] > (Hershberger, Jenkins and Robacker, 2015) > > § "information science" [not the science itself, but the name through which > we refer to it in an English-speaking context] > > § “安” [Chinese “an”, meaning “peace”] > > § “6°5’29”N 45°12’13”W” > > § “Black queen’s bishop 4” [chess coordinate][MD1] > > § “1900” > > § “4-4-1959” > > § “19-MAR-1922” > > § “19640604”[MD2] > > § “+41 22 418 5571” > > § wea...@paveprime.com[MD3] > > § “Vienna” > > § “CH-1211, Genève” > > § “Aquae Sulis Minerva” > > § “Bath” > > § “Cambridge” > > § “the Other Place” > > § “the City”[MD4] > > § “1-29-3 Otsuka, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 121, Japan” > > § “Rue David Dufour 5, CH-1211, Genève”[MD5] > > § “the entrance lobby to the Ripley Center” > > § “the poop deck of H.M.S Victory” > > § “the Venus de Milo’s left buttock” > > § “left inner side of my box” > > § “the entrance lobby to the Ripley Center” > > § “the poop deck of H.M.S Victory” > > § “the Venus de Milo’s left buttock” > > § “left inner side of my box”[MD6] > > § > > > In First Order Logic: > >E41(x) ⊃ E90(x) > > > > [MD1]Transfer of examples from deprecated E47 > > [MD2]Transfer of examples from E50 Date > > [MD3]Transfer of examples from E51 Contact Point > > [MD4]Transfer of examples from E44 Place Appellation > > [MD5]Transfer of examples from E54 Addr
Re: [Crm-sig] (Geographic) Place vs. SpaceTimeVolume (?) ISSUE: make methodology clear. ISSUE add "islands" to E27 Site.
It’s a bit Taliban, but I cannot disagree with Martin. Franco Il giorno sab 5 ott 2019 alle 19:49 Martin Doerr ha scritto: > Dear Dan, All > > I do not understand what you mean by making your life "easy". The question > is, if the identity conditions of the classes you use are compatible with > the reality you describe, and not if some properties or labels appear > convenient. > > Nobody forces you to use the CRM. It is made for reliable information > integration. If you use it, better not abuse it;-). Franco has made good > arguments below, that E53 Place is not what you take it for, and that the > distinction of bona fide and fiat cannot be verified in relevant cases. If > you replace E53 by your understanding of a "Place", basically you abuse the > CRM. If scope notes are not well-written, please refer to them, but please > do not create your own;-). > > Having said that, we have the following: The Space-Time Volume takes its > identity from either coordinates or a phenomenon, including claims in terms > of coordinates, that stay within such, fuzzy in general, boundaries that > form "volumes". > > No "named place" exists forever, hence it changes in time. If I describe a > dinosaur bone found in Desert Gobi, there was no Desert Gobi at that time. > "E53 Place" is not a "place". E53 describes a geometric extent. Hence, it > is the projection of the (maximal or current) extent of the named > phenomenon. It is good practice to define an instance of E53 Place "Extent > of Desert Gobi in 2019". It is wrong to regard the Desert as an E53. > > It is explicit in the scope note of E4 Period: > > "A geopolitical unit as a specific case of an instance of E4 Period is the > set of activities and phenomena related to the claim of power, the > consequences of belonging to a jurisdictional area and an administrative > system that establishes a geopolitical unit. Examples from the modern > period are countries or administrative areas of countries such as districts > whose actions and structures define activities and phenomena in the area > that they intend to govern. The borders of geopolitical units are often > defined in contracts or treaties although they may deviate from the actual > practice. The spatiotemporal properties of Geopolitical units can be > modelled through the properties inherited from E92 Spacetime Volume." > > > All examples you gave of things with a political identity are instances of > E4 Period. Period;-). All "places" defined by boundaries of geological > features, such as islands, are Physical Features, typically E27 Site. Both > have spatial projections. > The island of Crete was not an island 5 million years ago (Mediterranean > dried out), and considerably larger in the last Ice Age. > They change as all physical things. > > Please read the scope notes. > > It is per definitionem wrong for all CRM concept to argue with the meaning > of the label. Labels can only be wrong wrt to the scope note. Per > definitionem they do not constitute definitions. It is wrong to argue that > Czechoslovakia is not a period. You may argue if Czechoslovakia as an E4, > or if "Period" is the best label for the scope not of E4. It is correct to > regard "Extent of Czechoslovakia 2000" as an instance of E53. > > These are foundational principles of the CRM, hence not debatable, because > changing them would create other "ontologies". > > We have discussed and published in CRM-SIG modelling principles, which are > under review. I kindly ask all of you that help us improving the CRM with > your vivid interest and valuable responses, to read those before entering > deeper philosophical discussions. We have put the principles now on a more > visible place: > > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/methodology-of-ontology-development > > Unfortunately, as I see now, this principle, we have presented hundreds of > times in meetings and tutorial, has not be formulated strong enough neither > in the above document nor the CRM text. > > What comes next in the Methodolgy is section 8.3, which is not further > elaborated. > > I therefore propose to add in the CRM, in the section Terminology, > definition of "Class", to add an adequate variant of > "It is per definitionem wrong for all CRM concept to argue with the > meaning of the label. Labels can only be wrong wrt to the scope note. Per > definitionem they do not constitute definitions." > > So, concluding, the solution is E4 or E27 for all those guys, life is > easier with the CRM ;-) > > I hope this makes things clearer:-) > > Please contradict me;-), if necessary, > &
Re: [Crm-sig] (Geographic) Place vs. SpaceTimeVolume (?)
Dear Dan, I am a bit scared by what you propose. Let me summarize your procedure. You have a bag of things: islands, settlements (by the way, what do you mean by settlement?), territories. They all have the same nature, and have borders separating them from the rest of the universe: some are bona fide, i.e. they are borders permanently (or almost so) involving some discontinuity or heterogeneity; others don’t, and they are called fiat borders. This classification created by Smith and Varzi in a famous paper is independent from time variability. For example, an island has bona fide borders, but they may abruptly change due to natural phenomena, and Thira is a well-known example of this. A coast may be eroded by waves, sometimes very slowly and sometimes in a way perceptible by a human. A glacier is a bona fide object because its borders are defined by the intrinsic difference between the ice and the terrain, but it changes its shape in time, being larger in the winter compared to the summer. In the paper by Smith and Varzi introducing such concepts, the North Sea is mentioned as a fiat object although it is reasonably stable in time; actually all fiat objects tend to be variable in time due to their social/human definition. Further, time independence is not the same as time absence: Place is a concept based on time absence. To keep the integrity of your bag content, Place should be a 4D cylinder not varying along the t-axis. According to the current CRM definition, it is instead timeless. How would you manage the above mentioned case of Thira? It starts existing as a Place, but after the eruption it becomes a Space-Time Volume? Unfortunately I have no clean solution to offer. The only escape way I see tonight is to illegally associate to every Place a Space-time volume, also called Place, which has identical time sections to the Place at any time t, from the Big Bang to the end of the universe we could say; but no CRM property exists that allows associating the cross-section of a 4D Space-time volume at a given time t0 to the corresponding 3D region, a Place. In other words, Places would (always?) be projections (P161) of Space-time volumes; when the latter does not change in time, i.e. it is a 4D cylinder, it is also called a Place. This proviso makes your distinction not illogical any more, but just illegal; which is a substantial step forward. Then, variability in time is a matter of granularity, and may be well chosen by you according to the scope and purpose of your modeling. I am sending you separately some considerations on Space-time volumes - which are of course available to all the interested ones. A good read for the weekend. Regards 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 4 ott 2019, alle ore 21:46, Dan Matei ha scritto: > > Hi friends, > > In my legacy data, beside precise geographical Places (polygons, lines, > points), of course I have > named territories. > > Well, all Places are time-dependent: they are all post Big-Bang :-) But in > order to simplify my > life, I am tempted to model as E53_Place the bona fide spatial objects: > > • the "history-independent" places (e.g. Island of Crete, North America) > • the settlements (yes, a brutal simplification as bona fide objects) > > and as E92_SpaceTime_Volume the fiat spatial objects: > > • the territories of (extended) administrative units (counties..., > countries, empires). > > A few territories are stable in space AND time, e.g. Czechoslovakia, almost > (1918-1993, with the > WW2 caesura), but others... Think of the Habsburg Empire. > > Of course, there are "special" cases of almost identity, as "Malta" (the > island) and the territory > of "the Republic of Malta" (1964-), but I could live with them :-) > > What do you think ? could that be a reasonable enough decision ? > > Dan > > _ > Dan Matei, bibliograf > Institutul Național al Patrimoniului, Secția Biblioteci Digitale > Piața Presei Libere nr. 1, 013701 București > tel. 0725 253 222, 021 317 90 72, fax: 021 317 90 64 > dan.ma...@patrimoniu.gov.ro; d...@cimec.ro > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] E21 Person, E67 Birth
Absolutely agree. As long as we have questions to answer, we are alive. My comments were inspired by a recent discussion of Man-made thing vs Human-made thing. So we must pay attention not to raise any adverse reaction in wording, not in substance. Wording may suggest something beyond our intention. Did like my Latin speech? If so, I can also send emails in Latin :) I hope this qualifies me as a Latin speaker, a capacity I aspire to be fully recognized. Best 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 23 set 2019, alle ore 20:12, Martin Doerr ha > scritto: > > Dear Franco, > > I agree in all points. > > The problem with an ontology as the CRM is of course not to create any > prejudice for or against a doctrine or ethical position. > > As we agree, the CRM has to do with things that are identified in historical > documentation practice. The amount of matter present in a human body over > time and the eternal soul, by rebirth or after conception, free will or > determined by context etc. allows for many definitions of what a person is. > Therefore, in the CRM, we take from this the minimal commitment, which is not > in conflict with any wider definitions. This (E21) is between birth and > death, as an Actor and a material body. It makes no statement whatsoever, if > a person in social or divine understanding extends to more. > > Concluding, I do not see any conflict with the Catholic position, nor a > Buddhist one. We state that "end of pregnancy" may not result in an E21, > regardless what someone regards as a person. > > In other terms, we do not make philosophies about exhaustive definitions of > categories of reality. We make minimal commitments in order to have an > agreement about identity of things we refer to by a mechanical system, and > which we can use for scholarly, non-mechanical, non-mathematical exchange of > things in relation to such identities (or not). > > Would you agree? > > All the best, > > Martin > > On 9/23/2019 5:38 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote: >> Dear Martin, I agree with you. I tried to suggest a solution with what we >> have, of course introducing new entities/properties may be even better. >> >> However, when stating that a birth event may not end in a new E21 Person we >> must be very careful. According to the doctrine of Catholic Church, a Person >> exists since the very first moment of conception, when the first cell comes >> into existence and starts splitting. Such cell or assembly of cells is >> assumed, for example, to have a soul since the very beginning of its >> existence. Maybe also the Orthodox Church has the same belief. >> >> I am just mentioning the above without taking part in favour or against, of >> course. >> >> Thus end of pregnancy should not be opposed to Birth unless we formulate the >> scope note of the latter very carefully. I mean that what distinguishes a >> Birth from an end of pregnancy which is not a Birth should be stated without >> offending anybody. >> >> On a different but related note, I think that a clear distinction among the >> different cases of end of pregnancy where the baby is not born alive is >> unlikely to be documented in historical documents, so a generic category >> would probably suit better this particular case. >> >> Best >> >> 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 23 set 2019, alle ore 15:51, Martin Doerr >>> ha scritto: >>> >>> Dear Franco, All, >>> >>> I agree, we have typically no coming into existence, or it is quite >>> undefined. This is a nice case to discuss the border cases we encounter >>> with all concepts. >>> >>> Typically, the biological process is that of birth or alike. The stillborn >>> baby may be buried without social identity given. We could have a type of >>> Birth, with all except the coming into existence. We could agree that >>> ontologically, there is some coming into existence, but a birth event does >>> not necessarily end in a new E21 Person. >>> >>> The methodologicall
Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
Dear Martin The discussion started from “speaking languages” confronted with “language” as defined in the CRM. An example concerned speaking dead languages, like Latin. I can speak Latin, but never do it and probably will never do it in the future: although I could, if I so wished. People in the Vatican City do speak Latin every day, as it is the quasi-official language there (complicated story, see wikipedia for details). One of my colleagues had her first conversation in Latin at the age of 25, with her current husband, as it was the only foreign language both knew. So sometimes people capable of speaking a language never do it, or do it after many years they learnt it, or do it every day. According to your approach, you would qualify the priest in Vatican as “Latin speaker”; my colleague also as “Latin speaker” but only since the age of 25, when she magically acquired this qualification uttering some sounds in the language of the Romans; and myself “not Latin speaker”. About assessment: how do we assess the potential of an Actor: "This class comprises people, either individually or in groups, who have the **potential** to perform intentional actions of kinds for which someone may be held responsible.” So they are Actors even before doing anything or being in the position to do so, i.e. before any fact that can support assessing their capacity: just because the can “potentially" do it. Like myself with speaking Latin. Are they Actors since they are humans? Not really, because there is people “unfit to plead”, i.e. legally not responsible of their actions because of some mental infirmity. Nevertheless I would call them still Actors as they can do actions - without being responsible for what they do. In the particular case that raised the issue, the language knowledge (skill?) of people was reported in archive documents, which to me seems enough to assess these people's capacity. The same documents probably did not state if the people had ever spoken the language they reportedly knew. So an assessment is possible even it is not factual. Last, but not least: is there any difference between (being able of) “speaking” and “reading/writing”? I believe “speaking” is just shorthand for any of these... but what name would you give to the capacity of speaking or writing or reading or any combination of these - I can’t call them skills :) Best Franco PS I attach a short statement voiced in Latin hoping to upgrade from “non-Latin speaker” to “Latin speaker”, as of today. 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 23 set 2019, alle ore 16:04, Martin Doerr ha > scritto: > > Dear All, > > I support Christian-Emils proposal. May I remind you, that the CRM has become > very stable by a careful bottom-up process. Introducing super-concepts in a > rash to cover the whole world is desastrous. If any, we model first language > skills from documentation, and then add other skills one by one. Please also > compare to the FRBRoo model about extended activities. We describe a potter > by doing pottery, not by having the potential. The skill is a potential. CRM > is evidence oriented. People speaking a language do it. How do we assess the > Skill?? Aren't the events enough? (Exams, professions, use...) > > Best, > > martin > > On 8/29/2019 3:28 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: >> Besides the fact that language is a very central "skill" of humans which >> making vases definitely isn't (there is a book called the articulated mamal >> about psycolingustics, I have never accountered a book called the vasemaking >> mamal), skill in given languages seems to be documented in many >> documetnation systems. According to the priciples of CRM development we >> should always base our model on real examples from museum documentation. >> >> C-E >> From: George Bruseker >> Sent: 28 August 2019 20:49 >> To: Franco Niccolucci >> Cc: Christian-Emil Smith Ore; crm-sig; ste...@paveprime.org >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language >> >> Dear Franco et Al., >> >> Actually I have no argument against skill, it would be a similar pattern. My >> worry would be about making either a language or a skill a conceptual >> object. I see the reason behind the proposal but I'm not sure especially >> about language being conceived of as a human made object in the crm sense. >> There I think we more refer to an intentionally created intellectual object >> with discrete boundaries. I am not convinced this is an appropriate >> apprehension of language. We come to be in
Re: [Crm-sig] E21 Person, E67 Birth
Dear Martin, I agree with you. I tried to suggest a solution with what we have, of course introducing new entities/properties may be even better. However, when stating that a birth event may not end in a new E21 Person we must be very careful. According to the doctrine of Catholic Church, a Person exists since the very first moment of conception, when the first cell comes into existence and starts splitting. Such cell or assembly of cells is assumed, for example, to have a soul since the very beginning of its existence. Maybe also the Orthodox Church has the same belief. I am just mentioning the above without taking part in favour or against, of course. Thus end of pregnancy should not be opposed to Birth unless we formulate the scope note of the latter very carefully. I mean that what distinguishes a Birth from an end of pregnancy which is not a Birth should be stated without offending anybody. On a different but related note, I think that a clear distinction among the different cases of end of pregnancy where the baby is not born alive is unlikely to be documented in historical documents, so a generic category would probably suit better this particular case. Best 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 23 set 2019, alle ore 15:51, Martin Doerr ha > scritto: > > Dear Franco, All, > > I agree, we have typically no coming into existence, or it is quite > undefined. This is a nice case to discuss the border cases we encounter with > all concepts. > > Typically, the biological process is that of birth or alike. The stillborn > baby may be buried without social identity given. We could have a type of > Birth, with all except the coming into existence. We could agree that > ontologically, there is some coming into existence, but a birth event does > not necessarily end in a new E21 Person. > > The methodologically important question is which states of ignorance do we > encounter? Are the typical historical documents, in which the outcome of a > document birth may be unknown as it is in reality before it happens? Or are > the stillborn or miscarriage clearly distinct, because we normally describe > birth as secondary information about a Person? > > I assume the typical document uncertainty is between abortion, miscarriage, > stillborn or dying at birth, but clearly separated if the baby lives. As an > independent event, it is alternative to Birth. That would rather suggest a > superclass of Birth, ending pregnancy. > > Best, > > Martin > > On 9/23/2019 12:58 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote: >> As already explained I would better avoid Birth, and even Coming into >> existence. >> Birth has two properties P96 by mother and P97 by father, the former being >> of course more important. Using E5 Event does not allow this, so you can >> only use P11 had participant. If I remember well there is no P11.1 in the >> role of, but perhaps this may be harmlessly added. If not, a dirty solution >> is giving a Type to the Actor involved like >> P11 had participant E39 Actor ‘Mary Doe’ P2 has type “mother” >> Maybe colleagues can find a more elegant solution; type in this case is a >> role, not a property of the lady. But in my opinion only a *P11.1 in the >> role of ‘mother’ would work. >> >> Best >> >> Franco >> >> Il giorno lun 23 set 2019 alle 11:34 athinak ha >> scritto: >> Dear Franco, >> >> your comments are very useful and I think you are right, maybe this is >> about a more general concept or we may miss something with the >> definition of E67 Birth(?). And what about the parents? they are >> participants in this biological event? Especially the mother who acts, >> performs intentionally, especially in cases of stillborn, the procedure >> is to start labour. I am concerned with the definition of the birth >> event. >> >> Thank you for the feedback >> >> Athina >> >> >> Στις 2019-09-23 11:45, Franco Niccolucci έγραψε: >> > My suggestion would be to avoid being involved in ethical and >> > religious discussions (when does the ‘person’ start to be such?) >> > and go one step up in the entity hierarchy so: >> > * instead of E21 Person use E20 Biological Object (superclass of E21) >> > qualified with P2 has type >> > * instead of E67 Birth use E5 Event qualified with P2 has type. In my >> > opinion using instead E63 Beginning of existence (superclass of E67) >> > is risky because applying the
Re: [Crm-sig] E21 Person, E67 Birth
As already explained I would better avoid Birth, and even Coming into existence. Birth has two properties P96 by mother and P97 by father, the former being of course more important. Using E5 Event does not allow this, so you can only use P11 had participant. If I remember well there is no P11.1 in the role of, but perhaps this may be harmlessly added. If not, a dirty solution is giving a Type to the Actor involved like P11 had participant E39 Actor ‘Mary Doe’ P2 has type “mother” Maybe colleagues can find a more elegant solution; type in this case is a role, not a property of the lady. But in my opinion only a *P11.1 in the role of ‘mother’ would work. Best Franco Il giorno lun 23 set 2019 alle 11:34 athinak ha scritto: > Dear Franco, > > your comments are very useful and I think you are right, maybe this is > about a more general concept or we may miss something with the > definition of E67 Birth(?). And what about the parents? they are > participants in this biological event? Especially the mother who acts, > performs intentionally, especially in cases of stillborn, the procedure > is to start labour. I am concerned with the definition of the birth > event. > > Thank you for the feedback > > Athina > > > Στις 2019-09-23 11:45, Franco Niccolucci έγραψε: > > My suggestion would be to avoid being involved in ethical and > > religious discussions (when does the ‘person’ start to be such?) > > and go one step up in the entity hierarchy so: > > * instead of E21 Person use E20 Biological Object (superclass of E21) > > qualified with P2 has type > > * instead of E67 Birth use E5 Event qualified with P2 has type. In my > > opinion using instead E63 Beginning of existence (superclass of E67) > > is risky because applying the identity criteria to a fetus is > > uncertain and subject to ethical discussion, so the only safe solution > > is to record when it manifests to the world with a birth or > > miscarriage. > > > > Best > > > > Franco > > > > Il giorno lun 23 set 2019 alle 10:21 athinak ha > > scritto: > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> I am working on a project relating to historical information > >> (sources) > >> on Seafaring lives and Maritime Labour in 19th-20th century - we map > >> the > >> raw data to CIDOC CRM (or an extension of it). Historians collect > >> data > >> from various records, such as Civil Registers, which are records > >> documenting persons born or dead - basically, they register the > >> deaths. > >> So I have this case: they register as persons the miscarriages or > >> the > >> stillborn or the abortions, and they assign attributes such as the > >> number of registration, personal information (name,surname,etc. )of > >> the > >> parents, the place of residence (which is the parents address, of > >> course) and the sex of the aborted or still born (something they > >> knew > >> afterwards). I suppose this is a difficult ethical and biological > >> subject- my question is how would you model the miscarriage or the > >> still > >> born or the abortion? It is not exactly defined as E21 Person and if > >> it > >> is a case of still born, it can be a kind of a E67 Birth Event, but > >> if > >> it is a miscarriage, I believe it is not a birth event, it is a > >> different biological process, so what is it? > >> > >> Any thoughts that would help? > >> > >> thanks, > >> > >> Athina Kritsotaki > >> ___ > >> Crm-sig mailing list > >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
George, OK with me, but you should explain why knowing a language has a superior status compared to other abilities like - making vases - driving vehicles - painting - computation (I am particularly passionate about this one) - properly defining new classes/properties in the CRM etc. It seems to me that (speaking/knowing/using) a language is just one (very important) human skill among many, so I would rather consider a broader class, say Exx Skill, one of which skill types is "knowing a language", and then use something like E21 person Pxx has skill Exx Skill P2 has type E55 “speaking language” P2 has type E56 “EN”; as well as: E21 person Pxx has skill Exx Skill P2 has type E55 “computation” P2 has type E55 “four basic operations”. I leave to you to correctly place Exx Skill in the CRM hierarchy, maybe a subclass of E28 Conceptual Object. I would also be grateful if you are able to point me to a clean and comprehensive description of CRMBase which you refer to in your last sentence. Due to my ignorance, it looks to me like the Phoenix that, in the words of Don Alfonso in Mozart’s 'Così fan tutte’, “everybody says it exists, but nobody knows where it is” (a nice performance here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rY81pT5Wk). Best, 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 28 ago 2019, alle ore 17:48, George Bruseker > ha scritto: > > Hi Christian-Emil et al., > > Regarding language in particular, my argument would be to make a new direct > binary relation something like E21 Person pxx 'knew language’ E56 Language. > > This relation, to my mind, would be parallel to E18 p45 consists of E57 > Material > > There is indeed an event which we normally don’t know anything about (nor > have a research interest in) of learning a language, which leads to the > instance of E21 Person having a constitutional change in knowledge (Aristotle > called it Hexis) whereby they then know a language. I believe this change in > knowledge state is not something that changes the being of the individual as > such (primary quality) which is what p2 has type would indicate but only > creates a modification in the secondary qualities of the person. > > To loosely parallel existing CIDOC CRM modelling, a production event creates > an object. In creating it, materials are used and it creates a new instance > of Human Made Object. This instance of Human Made Object now consists of an > E57 Material like ceramic. So qua what it is made of we say p45 consists of, > qua what it functionally is, we say that it p2 has type ‘jug’ for example. > p45 is not a sub property of has type because the relation is not one of > “being" the material but rather having the substance of material x. > > Regarding time problems, the instance of E21 Person did not always know the > language. That being said when we declare a relation like ‘knew language’ we > state that it was the case that there was a moment of the existence of this > E21 Person where the person had the knowledge (had the hexis) of knowing x. > It is actually true for the whole lifetime of the entity that at sometime it > knew language x just in case in real life at sometime in its life it knew > language x. > > I think that in the interest of not endlessly filling up CRMBase, it might be > better to put such an addition into CRMSoc. The above suggestion does not > mean to argue that we couldn’t or shouldn’t also model learning events or use > events with regards to language but rather that there is a basic function > that is ontologically correct to assert that a Person knows a language which > fits a real world use case. > > Best, > > George > > > > > > > > >> On Aug 28, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore >> wrote: >> >> Dear George & all, >> Your text and sketch of a solution is indeed interesting. I agree that >> (natural, human) languages is a special case. Animals are currently not in >> the scope of CRM. I also agree that there is (currently) no links between an >> instance 'English (language)' of E55 Type and an instance 'speaker/writer >> ofEnglish (language)' of E55 Type. Should such a connection be in the type >> system (in the fringes or outside CRM)? If we introduce a new property from >> E21 Person what is the range, E55 Type? >> >> Best, >> Christian-Emil >> From: Crm-sig on behalf of George Bruseker >> >> Sent: 27 August 2019 10:53 >> To: Franco Niccolucci >> Cc: crm-sig; Runa, Lucília; ste
Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
Steve,
something for your breakfast tomorrow morning.
“Knowing” a language is not the same as “using” it. The case started from
documentation stating that somebody knows a language, but not reporting any
use, which is just potential but not necessarily actual. For example, I know
Latin pretty well, but I have very few - if any - opportunities of using it; on
the contrary, I do not know Japanese but sometimes say “sayonara” and “arigato”
appropriately. In these Portuguese archives I would be correctly recorded as
“Latin speaker” but not as “Japanese speaker”.
Your solution instead refers to “using" the language as implied by P16 and
would state exactly the opposite.
I share with you the hate for negative searches, for the reasons you clearly
explain.
Bene valeas placideque quiescas, Stephane (*)
Francus
(*) in order to enable you in using P16 for my knowledge of Latin
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 26 ago 2019, alle ore 23:32, Stephen Stead
> ha scritto:
>
> Just thinking about this after an interesting game of Railroad Revolution.
> It strike me that it might be useful to consider language as a Conceptual
> Object and an Actors use of it would be an instance of E7 Activity P2 has
> type E55 Type {Communication} P16 used specific object E28 Conceptual Object.
> E55 Type {Communication} could be sub-divided into written, spoken, reading
> etc as necessary.
> The other stuff that Rob mentions is rather different and at first glance
> looks a lot like the floruit from FRBR which became F51 Pursuit.
> I am concerned about building optimisations of properties that are intended
> for making searches about negative things like “not known to speak Latin” as
> this is a nasty place to be: absence of Knowledge versus knowledge of
> absence……
>
> Use of a technique is that also the use of an immaterial object?
>
> Anyway off to bed now. Very interesting question
> TTFN
> SdS
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Stead
> Tel +44 20 8668 3075
> Mob +44 7802 755 013
> E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
> LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/
>
> From: Crm-sig On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: 26 August 2019 18:54
> To: Franco Niccolucci ; George Bruseker
>
> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; "Runa, Lucília" ;
> Barbedo, Francisco
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I agree with the concerns about modeling the activity of learning a language
> as a substitute for the ability to communicate in a language. On paper I
> have a Ph.D. in French, so surely I’m fluent? Far far from it, as you
> doubtless noted in Paris I also agree that modeling as a Group is
> problematic for the same reason as modeling gender as a Group – the
> requirement for concerted action. Finally, I agree with Franco’s concern
> about the narrowness of the scope to only Language. We also have information
> about the skills and knowledge of individuals or groups such as Techniques
> employed.
>
> I would not want to model a complete skills management HR system (or video
> game!), but having some pattern for expressing relevant, observed abilities
> would be valuable for searching. Use cases would include:
> · Search for Human Made Objects (HMOs) not classified as Paintings,
> that were produced by an actor that is known for their ability in a painting
> technique. (e.g. drawings by Van Gogh)
> · Search for HMOs that carry a text in a language that is not known
> by the owner of the object (e.g. manuscript in latin owned by someone not
> known to speak latin)
> · Search for possible attributions for a text in a known language,
> filtering for people known to speak that language.
>
> In terms of solutions, we might consider:
> · A super-class for Group (Set?) that allows non-Persons to be
> aggregated, and does not have the intentionality of action requirement.
> o This would enable further modeling patterns, beyond Group and Curated
> Holding.
> · A property similar to George’s suggestion that has E55 Type as its
> range to include Technique or other types.
> o This would enable more specific recording of skills of an Actor without
> implying any particular event
> · A broad usage / known for activity without times more precise than
> the life dates of the actor that encompasses all uses of the language.
> o This would enable adding timespans when known, and perhaps be a pattern
> for other similar information such as when a person is known as an autho
Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
Dear George, all I think that there are two issues (at least) here. The first one concerns the identity criteria of this class. This discussion started from an issue related to the latter. In this case the grouping of English speakers, for example, is identified as “those people whose bio states so”. It does not matter if they really speak/spoke English of not, this concerns the veridicality of their bio, which is another story. So the grouping of English speakers is precisely identified. This is not always the case. This issue is a particular case of a more general issue concerning fiat vs bona-fide objects, to use the terminology introduced by Smith and Varzi about geographical (but not only) objects. As you may remember, fiat ones have precise boundaries, bona-fide don’t. For groupings, belongingness has the same alternatives, and in most cases what we may call “fiat belongingness” is based on a formal definition, like a listing, mathematical criteria, a decree and so on. There are thus groupings for which it is easy (feasible?) to assess belongingness, others for which it is not, others for which it is unclear. The crm-sig mailing list is an example of a fiat group defined by listing, as is the group of the citizens of Italy at the time I am writing this email, defined by the law and recorded in the civil registry. Nationality - mentioned in the E74 scope note - could belong the uncertain case: if you consider nationality as the formal status of being citizen of a country, it is a fiat criterion. But there may be cases in which the nationality may be uncertain. I don’t want to make examples of today as they may be politically sensitive, but if you had asked in 1861 to people from Venice their nationality they would answer “Italian” although their formal nationality was "Austro-Hungarian”. Thanks to the principle of self-determination, the number of such cases is much rarer today than it was in the 19th century, with a few notable exceptions that we all have in mind. However, 99.999% of the cases refer to formal nationality so the above is just a pedantic discussion. Language(s) spoken is much more difficult to assess: what turns the bona-fide boundary between speakers and non-speakers into a fiat one in this case? A certificate issued by a school? Self-assessment? I think that the case that raised this discussion may be easily solved as I mentioned above. But I would be cautious to use it in other cases. For the second issue, modelling this grouping as an E74, I understand George’s concern about the use of E74 Group, which is a subclass of E39 Actor and thus is required to “[collectively] have the potential to perform intentional actions of kinds for which someone may be held responsible”, what seems doubtful for speakers of a language. In my opinion this requirement for intentional actions could be considered in a very broad sense; for language, avoiding sexist terminology in English could be an example - stretching it a bit, I admit. But otherwise, how can we model collectivities like this one and others such as “archaeologists”, “Buddhists” “Real Madrid fans” etc ? Finally, George’s proposal is nice but addresses only the language issue and not other groupings/features of the same type, i.e. collectivities based on some common characteristic, but not required to be able to collectively perform intentional actions, for example illiterate people. Best 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 26 ago 2019, alle ore 08:29, George Bruseker > ha scritto: > > Dear all, > > In the context of multiple modelling projects, I have run into the need to > model the fact that an individual is known to have spoken/used a language. It > is a common attribute recorded of an individual in an information system. > Often, the only information we have / is known, is that someone 'had > language' x or y. The fact that someone is a user / speaker of a language is > a potentially directly observable phenomenon. I would thus argue that it can > be considered a direct property of an instance of E21 Person. To model > competency (native, very good etc.) and/or aspect (written/oral/reading), it > might also be necessary to add a .1 property or two. > > Modelling how a person acquired a language, when they lost it etc. would > require looking at temporal classes, but in the information systems I have > seen this is usually not recorded so is not be an immediate modelling need. > While I see the logic behind the group modelling pattern, it would seem to go > against the idea that a group self-identifies and can in principle act as > one. While I think one can make the case for a nation to po
Re: [Crm-sig] EMAIL SUSPEITO: P72 has Language
Dear Maria, all the problem comes from the fact that the CRM usually models what humans DO, not what they ARE. To model the latter, it is therefore necessary to introduce an event in which the person participates, as Thanasis suggested. What he proposes is correct, but considering a language instrumental to the activity of learning it sounds a bit awkward to my ear: common sense would consider so a handbook, an app, a teacher etc. Also, such activity may be problematic with native languages where an intentional action (= activity) is difficult to attribute to a few months old baby. >From your description I believe that you are interested in documenting the >factual knowledge of a language, not that/how it was learnt, so I suggest the >following approach. In this specific case you might use membership in an E74 Group, similar to what is suggested in the scope note of E74 for ‘nationality'. Thus you would have very large groupings of speakers of different languages, and speaking one of them would correspond to being member of that specific group, e.g. Maria P107 is member of E74 Group 'Portuguese speakers’. Incidentally, this option would also enable you (if you wish) to distinguish among the levels of knowledge of that language via P107.1 kind of member E55 Type ’native speaker’. Thus, also the following would hold for you: Maria P107 is member of E74 Group ‘English speakers’, but with P107.1 kind of member E55 Type ’second language speaker’. Further flexibility can be introduced with this P107.1 if required, like “writer”, “translator”, etc. Best 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 23 ago 2019, alle ore 16:17, Maria Jose de Almeida > ha scritto: > > > 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] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"
I don’t want to be invasive of this discussion, just state that also deprecation for the sake of deprecation sometimes seems to me an expensive attitude, although apparently very fashionable in recent times. We theorists often do not take into account the practical implications and the costs related to our vagaries, which we believe to address something fundamental that probably is not so. As concerns “artificial", what about "Artificial Intelligence”, currently one of the most used buzzwords? Perhaps maliciously we use it, tongue in cheek, thinking to its second sense, “insincere” :-) F. 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 12 apr 2019, alle ore 17:58, Robert Sanderson > ha scritto: > > > > Hi Franco, Christian, and Pierre, > > > > I agree that this is a modern and solely political issue limited to the > English language. English does not have the stability of (said as a native > speaker) better languages, nor the Academies that try to keep social > pressures from mutating it ad nauseum. > > > > That said, those are the properties of the evolution of the language, and in > the current stage of that evolution, it is less and less socially acceptable > to use gendered terms when non-gendered would suffice. I expect we can all > think of other words in our respective mother tongues that started out > completely innocuous and have changed meaning to where the usage has been > significantly different. > > > > I agree that there is a technical cost but one that seems less extensive > than, for example, deprecating a class or property completely, which happens > more often. The trade-off of readability of the terms in RDF compared to the > non-linguistic numbers, and the choice of English as a common technical > language for that readability, makes this cost unavoidable at times. > > > > For what it’s worth, we also considered “Artificial” but the second sense > (insincere or affected) was cause enough to not propose it. > > > > Rob > > > > From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci > > Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 8:05 AM > To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore > Cc: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-" > > > > I (almost) fully agree with Christian-Emil. > > > > But just “Made” could be a misleading label as per se it would include also > the result of a deliberate action by my cat: Made Feature = “scratch made on > this precious painting by Agatha (the cat) while sharpening her nails”. > Instead the scope note indicates it must be the result of human action. > > > > As regards the sexist use of “man": > > > > In Latin “homo” designates any human, the male homo being “vir” versus > “mulier”, the female homo: see e.g. “homo sapiens Linn.” and the like. > > This use has remained in Latin languages, even if the word “vir” as > substantive was sometimes lost: the word derived from homo in modern > languages may indicate a human being, regardless of gender, as well as a male > of this species: the generic use is a remnant of Latin, not a sexist > attribution. > > This is the current use in Italian. > > I am not sure about Romanian; for French, there is the famous Musée de > l’Homme in Paris, which I suspect hosts artefacts concerning both genders. A > possible prevalence of Male-Made ones, for the well-known historic reasons, > is not why it is called it the “Man Museum". > > The Royal Spanish Academy defines “hombre” as "Ser animado racional, varón o > mujer” i.e. “Living rational entity, man (varón) or woman (mujer)”. This > language kept the Latin distinction even if in the Tex-Mex language “hombre” > is usually referred to males only. Interesting to notice that varón does not > derive from vir and was originally a derogatory term, this time attributed to > males. > > > > In conclusion, this is a matter concerning some Anglo-Saxon allergy caused by > the semantic poverty of the language. I would let them go their way and > choose whatever they like best, man or human; in the meantime, continue > translating it with the gender-neutral term we use in our richer languages. > > > > A label is just a label, so check the implementation cost of the change > beforehand: standards are international, not English, so if a bias is > perceived by English speakers it is their problem, not mine. Thus out of > court
Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"
I (almost) fully agree with Christian-Emil. But just “Made” could be a misleading label as per se it would include also the result of a deliberate action by my cat: Made Feature = “scratch made on this precious painting by Agatha (the cat) while sharpening her nails”. Instead the scope note indicates it must be the result of human action. As regards the sexist use of “man": In Latin “homo” designates any human, the male homo being “vir” versus “mulier”, the female homo: see e.g. “homo sapiens Linn.” and the like. This use has remained in Latin languages, even if the word “vir” as substantive was sometimes lost: the word derived from homo in modern languages may indicate a human being, regardless of gender, as well as a male of this species: the generic use is a remnant of Latin, not a sexist attribution. This is the current use in Italian. I am not sure about Romanian; for French, there is the famous Musée de l’Homme in Paris, which I suspect hosts artefacts concerning both genders. A possible prevalence of Male-Made ones, for the well-known historic reasons, is not why it is called it the “Man Museum". The Royal Spanish Academy defines “hombre” as "Ser animado racional, varón o mujer” i.e. “Living rational entity, man (varón) or woman (mujer)”. This language kept the Latin distinction even if in the Tex-Mex language “hombre” is usually referred to males only. Interesting to notice that varón does not derive from vir and was originally a derogatory term, this time attributed to males. In conclusion, this is a matter concerning some Anglo-Saxon allergy caused by the semantic poverty of the language. I would let them go their way and choose whatever they like best, man or human; in the meantime, continue translating it with the gender-neutral term we use in our richer languages. A label is just a label, so check the implementation cost of the change beforehand: standards are international, not English, so if a bias is perceived by English speakers it is their problem, not mine. Thus out of courtesy I may try to avoid any inconvenience, but I would object paying for the necessary adjustments. On this regard, look at this: https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-04-08. Franco PS I did not know the American English use of “Made man” as a Mafia member; here we use the term “initiate” for a person inducted into the Mafia. 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 12 apr 2019, alle ore 15:14, Christian-Emil Smith Ore > ha scritto: > > Aas Øyvind points out, the debate is the result of a deficite of The English > language. In Swedish for example, the word for 'human' has femine gender. > > I have no problem with man-made -> made as long as 'made' is not too wide and > include object not made by humans. I checked OED adn it seems ok. But, please > check this with somebody with somebody with the right Englsih language > expertice. It is not allways so that the natives know their language in this > respect. > > Best, > Christian-Emil > > OED > > made, adj. > View as: Outline |Full entryKeywords: On |OffQuotations: Show all |Hide all > Pronunciation: Brit. /meɪd/, U.S. /meɪd/ > Forms: see make v.1 > Frequency (in current use): > Origin: Formed within English, by conversion. Etymons: English made , make > v.1 > Etymology: < made, past participle of make v.1 > I. Produced or obtained by making as distinguished in some way from other > modes of origin or acquisition. > Thesaurus » > Categories » > > †1. Of a story: invented, fictitious. Of a word: invented, coined. Of an > errand: invented for a pretext; made-up. Obsolete. > a1387—1843(Show quotations) > > > 2. > Thesaurus » > Categories » > > a. Chiefly Scottish in early use. That has undergone a process of > manufacture. Formerly also (occasionally): †prepared for use (cf. senses of > make v.1) (obsolete). > 1428—1966(Show quotations) > > > > b. spec. Of land, earth, etc.: resulting from human activity; constructed; > reclaimed. Later also applied to roads, watercourses, etc. Occasionally also, > of ground: composed (in part) of recently accumulated material (see quot. > 1871). > 1597—1981(Show quotations) > > > 3. > Thesaurus » > Categories » > > a. Chiefly Cookery. Concocted from ingredients or constituents; esp. in > made dish n. a dish composed of several ingredients. > made gravy n. a gravy artificially compounded, as opposed to one consisting > only of the juices obtained during cooking. > 1559—1995(Show quotations) > > > Thesaurus » > Categories » > > b
Re: [Crm-sig] Space time volumes
Dear Francesco I agree with your analysis. My comment last night aimed at showing in Dan’s case the inconsistencies you explain in your message by a reductio ad absurdum. My questions are: 1) which E2 is not an E4, even in a broad sense? 2) which E94 (relevant, and not just purely abstract) is not also an E4? 3) Does the scope note of E94 allow the existence of some instances that are also E4, as implied by the subclass condition and described in Dan’s examples? 4) What is the difference between P4/P7 and P160/P162? My answers are in the negative for all of the above, but I may be wrong. I am not sure that E94 should end in the waste basket; perhaps it should go in the recycle bin and be repurposed as an abstract concept like Time-span, Place and Dimension, at the same time freeing E4 from dependence from it: E4 would occupy some E94, not be it. Best, Franco Il giorno gio 21 mar 2019 alle 08:30 Francesco Beretta < francesco.bere...@cnrs.fr> ha scritto: > Dear Dan, Franco, all, > > > in a nutshell: > > > Period – E4 > > P4 has time-span E52 Time-Span > > P7 took place at E53 Place > > > Spacetime Volume – E92 > > P160 has temporal projection E52 Time-Span > > P161 has spatial projection E53 Place > > > Period – E4 (phenomenal) Pxx has projection in Spacetime Volume – E92 > (‘region’) > > > If we keep Spacetime Volume – E92 in the model we should get rid of *P4 > has time-span* and *P7 took place* at because they are redundant with *P160 > has temporal projection* and *P161 has spatial projection*, or apply the > logical mechanism proposed by Martin which is under discussion. > > > If we get rid of E92 (and properties) and clearly explain E4 is a > spacetime volume *by definition*, with temporal and spatial projection > (P4/P7), then the issue seems to be solved. > > > E4 being a subclass of E92 is in my opinion (and other’s also as we know) > inconsistent with the traditional modelling method, and also misleading. > > > If E4 can be merged with E2 (E2 would always have a projection in space, > at least virtually, be this my brain the ‘place’ for my belief), then E2 is > a STV with projection in time and space. > > > This synthesis may be too simple not to be simplistic and I miss some > crucial point ? > > > All the best > > Francesco > > > > Le 21.03.19 à 00:05, Franco Niccolucci a écrit : > > (Dan, resist, the cavalry is arriving, do you hear the trumpets? ) > > Sorry, that’s not convincing. > > E4 Period is a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume, so every E4 is also an > E92. There may theoretically be some E92 that are not E4, i.e. abstract > subsets of R4 (sorry my email app does not allow superscrpits, R4 means the > 4-dimensional space of real numbers x, y, z, t) > > So Dan’s “Byzantine period” is rightfully also a Spacetime Volume, besides > obviously being an E4 Period; same as it is an E1, the mother of all > concepts. If it does not fit with the E92 scope note, it is the latter that > is misspelled and wrong, not Dan. Scope notes cannot override isA. > > Also, since the domain of P160 & 161 is E92, they can be applied also to > E4. Perhaps this makes P7 superfluous, but that’s another story. > > In sum there is nothing “wrong” in Dan’s usage of E92 and the related > properties. > > I would also add that I find difficult to describe an E92 that is not an > E4, besides artificial examples. > > (Dan, nasty Indians are running away in debacle, you are safe...) > > Finally, let me express some nightly gut feeling. > I am not comfortable with the scope note of E2: “This class comprises all > phenomena, such as the instances of E4 Periods, E5 Events and states, which > happen over a limited extent in time”. If these phenomena are happening, > they happen somewhere, do you know anything happening nowhere? so I would > feel better by adding at the end of this sentence “in time AND SPACE”. > Actually, all the examples of E2 mentioned in its scope note happen > somewhere: the Bronze Age happened in a region (Europe, the Levant, etc. > not in America); the Lisbon earthquake happend in Lisbon; the Peterhof > Palace in ruins happened in Northern Russia. My gut feeling is that the > scope notes of E2 and perhaps E4 were written before achieving the concept > of E92, so they might be inconsistent or superfluous nowadays. My moonlight > feeeling is that all temporal things are subclasses of E92; but this could > be the effect of sad Brussels loneliness, where I am now, so don’t take it > too seriously. > > Best > > Franco > > > > > Il giorno mer 20 mar 2019 alle 15:04 Dan Matei ha scritto: > >> Thanks Christian-Emil and Martin. >> >> I will use then E4 and P7 (regretf
Re: [Crm-sig] Space time volumes
(Dan, resist, the cavalry is arriving, do you hear the trumpets? ) Sorry, that’s not convincing. E4 Period is a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume, so every E4 is also an E92. There may theoretically be some E92 that are not E4, i.e. abstract subsets of R4 (sorry my email app does not allow superscrpits, R4 means the 4-dimensional space of real numbers x, y, z, t) So Dan’s “Byzantine period” is rightfully also a Spacetime Volume, besides obviously being an E4 Period; same as it is an E1, the mother of all concepts. If it does not fit with the E92 scope note, it is the latter that is misspelled and wrong, not Dan. Scope notes cannot override isA. Also, since the domain of P160 & 161 is E92, they can be applied also to E4. Perhaps this makes P7 superfluous, but that’s another story. In sum there is nothing “wrong” in Dan’s usage of E92 and the related properties. I would also add that I find difficult to describe an E92 that is not an E4, besides artificial examples. (Dan, nasty Indians are running away in debacle, you are safe...) Finally, let me express some nightly gut feeling. I am not comfortable with the scope note of E2: “This class comprises all phenomena, such as the instances of E4 Periods, E5 Events and states, which happen over a limited extent in time”. If these phenomena are happening, they happen somewhere, do you know anything happening nowhere? so I would feel better by adding at the end of this sentence “in time AND SPACE”. Actually, all the examples of E2 mentioned in its scope note happen somewhere: the Bronze Age happened in a region (Europe, the Levant, etc. not in America); the Lisbon earthquake happend in Lisbon; the Peterhof Palace in ruins happened in Northern Russia. My gut feeling is that the scope notes of E2 and perhaps E4 were written before achieving the concept of E92, so they might be inconsistent or superfluous nowadays. My moonlight feeeling is that all temporal things are subclasses of E92; but this could be the effect of sad Brussels loneliness, where I am now, so don’t take it too seriously. Best Franco Il giorno mer 20 mar 2019 alle 15:04 Dan Matei ha scritto: > Thanks Christian-Emil and Martin. > > I will use then E4 and P7 (regretfully :-) > > My impression is that the combination E92, P160 & P161 is a more elegant > solution. But, rules are > rules... > > Best, > > EDan > > E2 and -Original Message- > From: Martin Doerr > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:13:52 +0200 > > > As Christian-Emil also pointed out, this is a wrong use of E92. > > > > The scope note says: "This class comprises 4 dimensional point sets > > (volumes) in physical spacetime". > > > > Do you regard that what makes up the identity and substance of the > > Byzantine Period is to be a set of points? > > > > best, > > > > Martin > > > > On 3/19/2019 10:27 AM, Dan Matei wrote: > > > Hi fiends, > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 19:20, Martin Doerr > wrote: > > > > > >> Nevertheless, we used the term informally in the CRM. We could name > E92 as "abstract". > > > For me, some E92 are not abstract. E.g. I instantiate "Byzantine > > > Period" (it is somwhat difficult to place it in South America :-) : > > > > > > <#ByzantinePeriod> > > > <#ByzantinePeriod> <330-1700> > > > <#ByzantinePeriod> <#EsternEurope> > > > <#ByzantinePeriod> <#Levant> > > > <#ByzantinePeriod> <#NorthAfrica> > > > > > > Also: > > > > > > <#BronzeAge1> > > > <#BronzeAge1> <#BronzeAge-Concept> > > > <#BronzeAge1> > > > <#BronzeAge1> <#JapaneseIslands> > > > > > > <#BronzeAge2> > > > <#BronzeAge2> <#BronzeAge-Concept> > > > <#BronzeAge2> > > > <#BronzeAge2> <#Scandinavia> > > > > > > Should I worry ? > > > > > > Dan > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 369
This discussion reminds me the “Ship of Theseus” paradox (for those who don’t remember it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus). So Phases depend on the identity criteria assumed for the Entity. 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 19 feb 2019, alle ore 09:18, Francesco Beretta > ha scritto: > > Hi, > > I agree with Martin's definition of phase and point of view of not > "connecting a discussion about "phases of ideas" with "phases of Physical > Things". > > I earlier thought myself that ideas, in some ways, could have 'phases' but it > seems more suitable, in the way of modeling adopted by the CRM, to say that > ideas (in the sense of propositional objects or of concepts/types — and what > about symbolic objects ?) exist as such, are identifiable as such, and do not > change in their identity over time. It seems to be our mind, our belief > (CRMinf I2 Belief), our mental state (Issue 359: mental state), that can > evolve, i.e. the substratum carries new ideas, our classification of concepts > can change, our belief, etc. but this would be about changing of mental > state not about changing of the ideas themselves, as such. Would this be the > point ? > > Would then, it this is correct, Mental state (not existing yet as class – > Issue 359) and Belief I2 be subclasses of Exxx Phase ? > > > > Another issue would be to ask if a E74 Group can have phases. Althogh the > identity of the group remains the same, it can have different 'behaviours', > strategies, situations, etc. This is of course related to social life, to an > ongoing, virtual CRMsoc extension. But insofar as 'Phase' is modelled as high > abstraction level class in CRMbase itself, wouldn't be appropriate to > consider also phases in the life of groups ? > > If yes, then we would need one property pointing from the temporal entity > 'Phase' to the object concerned by the specific appearence or characteristic > identifying the phase. But E74 Group and E18 Physical Things do not belong to > the same class, right? By the way I was wondering why E74 Group is not > subclass of Legal Object – E72. But if it was, this wouldn't arrange things, > I assume, because, ont the one side, having phases in not the intension of > the Legal Object class and, on the other side, there's the E90 Symbolic > Object subclass there which wouldn't seem to have 'phases'. Or does it have > indeed ? > > All the best > > Francesco > > > > > > > > > > Le 18.02.19 à 20:40, Martin Doerr a écrit : >> Dear Martijn, >> >> On 2/18/2019 5:10 PM, van Leusen, P.M. wrote: >>> Dear Martin, >>> >>> Would you want to tie the existence of a phase exclusively to E18 Physical >>> Things? One can imagine phases in the development of ideas as well >> Yes to both. As always, we do not model the term, here "phase", but try to >> define a distinct concept we can associate with a clear-cut "behavior". >> Physical Things can be thought of as having a simple trajectory through >> space-time: Any change makes the previous disappear. Therefore, substantial >> evolutionary steps can be represented with a begin and ending on a >> time-line.That is a concept I can perceive as a sort of "phase". Therefore >> the label. >> >> The evolution of ideas, as any other immaterial thing, does not make >> previous ideas disappear. I will be very happy to discuss what phases of >> ideas may be confined to, whose they are, what sense of progress they have, >> and how we perceive the social effect of ideas we would associate with >> phases. >> >> Because of the above considerations, I suggest not to connect a discussion >> about "phases of ideas" with "phases of Physical Things" (which include >> humans!!). I do not suggest that phases of humans are restricted to material >> aspects. In my proposed definition, they may be due to mental developments, >> as long as they characterize substantially the being. >> >> All the best, >> >> Martin >> >>> >>> Martijn >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 8:54 PM Martin Doerr wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Here a first attempt to define "phase": >>> >>> >>> Exxx Phase >>> >>> Subclass of:E2 Temporal Entity >>> >>
Re: [Crm-sig] **NEW ISSUE** Ordinal Property for E55 Type
Dear Steve You are right. X < Y is equivalent to "X precedes Y" or "Y follows X” in an ordered set So: “Good (condition) follows Poor (Condition)” “Small precedes Large” etc. No snag, I just messed the concepts. To my excuse, it is not uncommon when the E55 Type of one’s age (decidedly) follows E55 Type = Young. Best, 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 3 gen 2019, alle ore 18:00, Stephen Stead ha > scritto: > > Hi Franco, All > Happy New Year > If we change to Franco's suggested labels (which I think there is a strong > case for) I am confused by the order he suggests as this seems to me to be > the reverse of the original property. So to get the same ordering I would > expect:- > Pxx conceptually follows (conceptually precedes) > Now if that means, to some, the opposite of the original property then we may > have hit a snag with the suggested new property labels. > Rgds > SdS > > Stephen Stead > Tel +44 20 8668 3075 > Mob +44 7802 755 013 > E-mail ste...@paveprime.com > LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ > > -Original Message- > From: Franco Niccolucci > Sent: 03 January 2019 08:10 > To: ste...@paveprime.com > Cc: crm-sig > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] **NEW ISSUE** Ordinal Property for E55 Type > > This proposal makes sense to me, and I would strongly support it. > > Only, the name “is conceptually greater” is not completely appropriate, in my > opinion. For example, “Good” is not ‘greater' than “Poor”: it is ‘better’; > “Old” is not ‘greater' than “Young” - actually, except for wines, it is worst > :) > > Maybe “conceptually precedes”, and “conceptually follows” for the reverse? > This would reflect the ordinal character of the concerned types in a neutral > way. Being a little cryptic would convey the generic value of a pre-defined > order to the reader. > > I am aware that such names are only labels, and in principle can be anything. > But since we are christening the new property, a little effort to choose a > more significant one could be done. > > Furthermore, this introduction of ordinality leads me to ask “who said > that?”: if some orders may be considered factual, e.g “heavy” is greater than > “light", others are possibly not, being the consequence of a subjective > appreciation: is “handmade” greater than “industrial”? But this is another > story. > > 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 3 gen 2019, alle ore 06:49, Stephen Stead >> ha scritto: >> >> During the discussions at the CRM-SIG meeting during November 2018 in Berlin >> the problem of dealing with instances E55 Type that have ordinal >> relationships with other instances of E55 Type came up. There were a number >> of use cases explored including:- >> • Condition report status values like Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, >> Critical where being able to query for all items that were below “Average” >> or “Good” and above would be useful. >> • Map scales expressed as types >> • Fire Hazard Ratings >> This lead Robert and I to suggest that a new property be created that >> allowed this kind of ordinal relationship to be expressed. The >> quantification allows for parallel hierarchies, e.g. if someone has a type >> that is “slightly better than average but not quite good”, then they could >> align that with an existing hierarchy of Good > Average by saying that it is >> greater than “Average” and that “Good” is greater than both it and Average. >> >> Pxx is conceptually greater than (is conceptually less than) >> Domain: E55 Type >> Range: E55 Type >> Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) >> >> This property allows instances of E55 Type to be declared as having an order >> relative to other instances of E55 Type, without necessarily having a >> specific value associated with either instance. This allows, for example, >> for an E55 Type instance representing the concept of "good" to be greater >> than the E55 Type instance representing the concept of "average". This >> property is transitive, and thus if "average" is greater than "poor", then >> "good" is also
Re: [Crm-sig] **NEW ISSUE** Ordinal Property for E55 Type
This proposal makes sense to me, and I would strongly support it. Only, the name “is conceptually greater” is not completely appropriate, in my opinion. For example, “Good” is not ‘greater' than “Poor”: it is ‘better’; “Old” is not ‘greater' than “Young” - actually, except for wines, it is worst :) Maybe “conceptually precedes”, and “conceptually follows” for the reverse? This would reflect the ordinal character of the concerned types in a neutral way. Being a little cryptic would convey the generic value of a pre-defined order to the reader. I am aware that such names are only labels, and in principle can be anything. But since we are christening the new property, a little effort to choose a more significant one could be done. Furthermore, this introduction of ordinality leads me to ask “who said that?”: if some orders may be considered factual, e.g “heavy” is greater than “light", others are possibly not, being the consequence of a subjective appreciation: is “handmade” greater than “industrial”? But this is another story. 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 3 gen 2019, alle ore 06:49, Stephen Stead ha > scritto: > > During the discussions at the CRM-SIG meeting during November 2018 in Berlin > the problem of dealing with instances E55 Type that have ordinal > relationships with other instances of E55 Type came up. There were a number > of use cases explored including:- > • Condition report status values like Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, > Critical where being able to query for all items that were below “Average” or > “Good” and above would be useful. > • Map scales expressed as types > • Fire Hazard Ratings > This lead Robert and I to suggest that a new property be created that allowed > this kind of ordinal relationship to be expressed. The quantification allows > for parallel hierarchies, e.g. if someone has a type that is “slightly better > than average but not quite good”, then they could align that with an existing > hierarchy of Good > Average by saying that it is greater than “Average” and > that “Good” is greater than both it and Average. > > Pxx is conceptually greater than (is conceptually less than) > Domain: E55 Type > Range: E55 Type > Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) > > This property allows instances of E55 Type to be declared as having an order > relative to other instances of E55 Type, without necessarily having a > specific value associated with either instance. This allows, for example, > for an E55 Type instance representing the concept of "good" to be greater > than the E55 Type instance representing the concept of "average". This > property is transitive, and thus if "average" is greater than "poor", then > "good" is also greater than "poor". In the domain of statistics, types that > participate in this kind of relationship are called "Ordinal Variables"; as > opposed to those without order which are called "Nominal Variables". This > property allows for queries that select based on the relative position of > participating E55 Types. > > Examples: > * Good (E55) is conceptually greater than Average (E55) > * Map Scale 1:1 (E55) is conceptually greater than Map Scale 1:2 > (E55) > * Fire Hazard Rating 4 (E55) is conceptually greater than Fire Hazard > Rating 3 (E55) > > Comments Welcome > SdS & Robert S > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: dimension intervals
Martin, I agree with you, E60 Number is a jack-of-all-trades and can be a couple, a triple, whatever numeric value or set of values as long as it is clear what is what. So for ancient/nonstandard/local units such as ft & inches or Roman cubitus I would add: E58 Measurement Unit “ft” P70 is documented in E31 Document “F.W Clarke, Weights Measures and Money of all Nations. Appleton & C. New York 1888”. Incidentally, Prof. Clarke (from the U. of Cincinnati) wrote in the introduction “Our three sets of weights, our three different gallons, and our two dissimilar bushels, all unrelated to each other, or to the units of length, must soon give way before the simplicity and elegance of the metric system. That this event my soon happen [...] is the sincere wish and hope of the writer.” 130 years have passed since then, at no avail. Thus, I would at least regard any such unit (system) as local or historical, and therefore needing a reference description: otherwise for me - and for any scientist - that value of 3 ft 6 inches could equally well be the distance of Alpha Centauri from the Earth, or the size of a bacterium. Best Franco By the way, reference to ISO1000:1992 in the E58 scope note should be updated to ISO8:2009, superseding ISO1000 and in force for some 10 years now; probably also referencing the so-called "BIPM SI Brochure" would be OK. Removing all reference to non-SI units from the scope note description would also be desirable: there is no such thing as “internationally recognized non-SI terms”, who gives this “international recognition” if not the BIPM? Of course they may remain in the examples, together with the recommendation of preserving archaic measurement units. F. 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 8 nov 2018, alle ore 21:00, Martin Doerr ha > scritto: > > Dear Richard, > > It requires a sort of datatype or encoding. > > Assume unit = "ft" >value = <3,6> > > would that make sense? > > In the xsd datatypes everything is in the value already. > > best, > > martin > > On 11/8/2018 8:00 PM, Richard Light wrote: >> While we're looking at this area, I would be grateful if we could also look >> at Value and Unit. >> >> I have never understood how P90 and P91 are actually meant to be used >> together. I can see how a single E54 can be represented by a single P90 and >> a single P91, but how do we represent anything more complex? An example >> would be "3 ft 6 inches". Can that be an E54 Dimension, and if so how do >> you know which unit applies to which value? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Richard >> >> >> On 07/11/2018 16:10, Martin Doerr wrote: >>> Dear All. >>> >>> Continuing issue 363, >>> >>> I propose the following: >>> >>> "Whereas the CRM regards that intervals of primitive values are primitive >>> values by themselves, there is currently no corresponding practice in RDF. >>> Therefore, in analogy to the properties of E52 Time-Span, we define in CRM >>> RDFS two more subproperties of P90 has value: “P90a_has_lower_value_limit” >>> and “P90b_has_upper_value_limit”. The precise guidelines for using these >>> properties are to be given." >>> >>> Sensor arrays, more and more in use, pose the issue of a single measurement >>> resulting in an array of numbers which altogether form one quantitative >>> statement about the observed. We can describe such structures easily as one >>> complex type of unit (and define an IRI for it), and then regard the value >>> to a matrix of numbers, in which each position obeys subunits as defined in >>> the complex unit type. >>> >>> Even if we regard complex matrices of numbers as one value for an instance >>> of E54 Dimension, such as RGB image, we can argue that minimal and maximal >>> values exist as two separate matrices of the same structure. >>> >>> Consequently I propose to deprecate P83, P84, because in competes with an >>> interval interpretation of P90, and : >>> >>> Introduce instead Pxxx had duration, Domain: E52 Time-Span, Range: E54 >>> Dimension >>> and use the P90, P90a, P90b as adequate >>> >>> or introduce an Exxx Temporal Duration , subclass of E54 Dimension, and >>> define subproperties in RDFS ending in xsd:duration. >>> >>> See: >>> P83 had
[Crm-sig] Special issue of JJDL on "FAIR data and Cultural Heritage data-centric research"
Dear all, following the special session held at CIDOC 2018, I attach here the Call for Papers for a special issue of the International Journal on Digital Libraries on "FAIR data and Cultural Heritage data-centric research”. The deadline is 31/1/19 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 CFP-FAIR+heritage+data.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document
Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event
I meant the following. If I shoot a person in a street, this event has me as participant via P11 and all the people in the street as bystanders via P12. It looks strange that the victim has no direct relation with the omicide except P12 “was present”, like all the other people in the crime scene. Since an Event is a change in something, one could expect that there is a direct relationship with the thing(s) affected. I would also expect that in most cases, loosely speaking, an event modifies, and not destroys, for which there would be the dedicated property P13. Look at this example, concerning an E5 Event that P2 has type E55 Type “Vandalism of art” The fact: “On 30/12/56, Ugo Ungaza Villegas threw a rock at the painting [Mona Lisa]; this resulted in the loss of a speck of pigment near the left elbow” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_of_art). the above E5 Event P11 had participant E39 Ugo Ungaza Villegas P12 occurred in the presence of “Le nozze di Cana” (painting by Veronese located in the same room, unaffected by the vandalic act) P12 occurred in the presence of “Mona Lisa” (the victim) P12 occurred in the presence of John Doe (an American Louvre visitor who was there by chance, not involved in the planned vandalism) P12 occurred in the presence of a sofa (placed near the wall, for tired visitors; not sure there was one but could be) P12 occurred in the presence of the stone (thrown at the painting, now in the Police archives as evidence n. 123456) In conclusion, being present is often a poor property, bringing little information, except perhaps in the case of the Yalta Conference. Incidentally, activities defined as subclasses of E7 (Acquisition, Move, transfer, etc.) allow to specify the thing they affect via an appropriate property; this is not the case for E7 itself, so for an activity not included in the CRM list one is confined to this “Presence” story. Et al. Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 22 mag 2018, alle ore 05:32, George Bruseker > ha scritto: > > Hi Rob et al., > > Just to jump in on the reason for this particular scope note reformulation > work. > > The reason behind the effort to articulate a new scope note lies in the > reference to states in the previous scope note which has caused an ongoing > debate regarding where then ‘states’ are in CIDOC CRM. Given that this debate > recurs frequently, it seems worth the effort to kill the ‘states’ language.. > > When you say that E5 doesn’t have a relation to E77, what do you mean? There > is p12 as the most general relation between an E2 kind of thing and and an > E77. Or do you mean something else? > > Cheers, > > George > >> On May 22, 2018, at 12:52 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote: >> >> >> Agreed entirely with this. The proposed scope note seems more complicated >> than the current one, for no additional value. The observability also >> brings into question the nature of the potential observer – can there be >> more than one observer for an event that lasts longer than a human lifetime? >> If there were an all-powerful, omni-present being, would that being count >> towards being observable (at which point, there’s no real meaning to >> “observable”) and if not, then what does count? Must all parts of the event >> be observable? >> >> The lack of the relationship between the Event and an E77 has vexed us for a >> long time, such as for representing the ownership period (err, event) of an >> object. >> >> Rob >> >> From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci >> >> Date: Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:29 PM >> To: Martin Doerr >> Cc: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event >> >> >> >> There is a subtle difference between “observed” and “observable”: “observed" >> is an “accident”, “observable” is “substance”. >> >> So the lone moonlight dance is not observed for lack of observers, although >> it is observable. What the dancer thinks during the performance, and by the >> way also his intention to do so, are, instead, not observable, therefore can >> never observed, a fortiori. >> >> Incidentally, the Event is defined as a change of state of some E77 >> Persistent Item, which curiously has participants as per P11, and also >> voyeurs as per P12, but cannot affect (=change the state of) anything for >> the lack of the related property e.g. P?? affects E77. >> >> What’s the problem with the old scope note? >> >> Franco >> >> Prof. Franco Niccolucci >>
Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event
There is a subtle difference between “observed” and “observable”: “observed" is an “accident”, “observable” is “substance”. So the lone moonlight dance is not observed for lack of observers, although it is observable. What the dancer thinks during the performance, and by the way also his intention to do so, are, instead, not observable, therefore can never observed, a fortiori. Incidentally, the Event is defined as a change of state of some E77 Persistent Item, which curiously has participants as per P11, and also voyeurs as per P12, but cannot affect (=change the state of) anything for the lack of the related property e.g. P?? affects E77. What’s the problem with the old scope note? Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 21 mag 2018, alle ore 21:43, Martin Doerr ha > scritto: > > On 5/21/2018 9:39 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: >> 'in-principle' is in principle ok, but the term gives a hint that what >> follows is not the case. At least for persons with knwlegde of the life in >> the former Soviet block. > Don't agree, may need a better term. If someone dances on the road, but > nobody is there, because the road is closed, it is not > observable, because there is no observer. But the same kind of event, in > other circumstances, could be observed. There is nothing in intrinsic to > itself which prevents observation. > > A better idea how to say that? > > Cheers, > > Martin >> >> It is better dropped. >> >> Best, >> Christian-Emil >> >> From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci >> >> Sent: 21 May 2018 19:39 >> To: Martin Doerr >> Cc: crm-sig >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event >> >> see below >> F. >> >> Prof. Franco Niccolucci >> Director, VAST-LAB >> PIN - U. of Florence >> Scientific Coordinator >> ARIADNE - PARTHENOS >> >> Piazza Ciardi 25 >> 59100 Prato, Italy >> >> >>> Attempt of a new one: >>> >>> >>> Scope note: This class comprises in-principle observable, >> I think that the CRM concerns ONLY observables; if so, the specification is >> superfluous. >> >>> distinct and delimited processes of material nature, in cultural, social or >>> physical systems, even in a human brain, >> Definitely FORTH must have developed a telepathy machine :). >> >> What happens in the human brain is observable only (indirectly) with >> electro-encephalogram and the like, so: if this is the intended meaning, it >> is just a physical process as any other, e.g. those involving human like >> blood pressure vslue, hearth beat, etc. and not worth special mentioning. If >> instead this statement refers to (suggests?) observation of thinking, this >> is (luckily) not observable. >> >>> involving and affecting in a characteristic way instances of E77 >>> Persistent Item, brought about by some coherent physical, social or >>> technological phenomena. An instance of E5 Event may or may not >> Only what *may* be affected, or *may not* be affected, somehow supports an >> identity criterium. What may or may not be affected looks as irrelevant, >> because we cannot understand from the consequences (or lack thereof) that >> some event took place, leading to an observed change (or lack of change), >> because the event may or may not have led to such change. >> >>> lead >>> to relevant permanent changes of properties and relations of items involved >>> in it. >>> Properties and kinds of things that may be affected are characteristic for >>> the type of an event. >>> >> This is somehow contradictory with the previous statement: it states that >> there are things that may be affected, and other things that may not; >> perhaps also a third grouping that “may or may not". In all, it is a bit >> messy. >> >> Franco >> >> >>> please comment! >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| >>> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638| >>>| Email: >>> mar...@ics.forth.gr >>> | >>>
Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event
see below F. Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Attempt of a new one: > > > Scope note: This class comprises in-principle observable, I think that the CRM concerns ONLY observables; if so, the specification is superfluous. > distinct and delimited processes of material nature, in cultural, social or > physical systems, even in a human brain, Definitely FORTH must have developed a telepathy machine :). What happens in the human brain is observable only (indirectly) with electro-encephalogram and the like, so: if this is the intended meaning, it is just a physical process as any other, e.g. those involving human like blood pressure vslue, hearth beat, etc. and not worth special mentioning. If instead this statement refers to (suggests?) observation of thinking, this is (luckily) not observable. > involving and affecting in a characteristic way instances of E77 Persistent > Item, brought about by some coherent physical, social or technological > phenomena. An instance of E5 Event may or may not Only what *may* be affected, or *may not* be affected, somehow supports an identity criterium. What may or may not be affected looks as irrelevant, because we cannot understand from the consequences (or lack thereof) that some event took place, leading to an observed change (or lack of change), because the event may or may not have led to such change. > lead > to relevant permanent changes of properties and relations of items involved > in it. > Properties and kinds of things that may be affected are characteristic for > the type of an event. > This is somehow contradictory with the previous statement: it states that there are things that may be affected, and other things that may not; perhaps also a third grouping that “may or may not". In all, it is a bit messy. Franco > please comment! > > Best, > > Martin > > -- > -- > 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 >| > -- > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Administrative units
Dear Richard
the case you describe clearly belongs to the category of “fiat spatial objects”
as defined by Smith and Varzi, as opposed to “bona fide spatial objects” i.e.
common physical objects. Smith & Varzi introduce this concept in several papers
of theirs - I am sending you, separately, a copy of one of these papers - i.e.,
loosely speaking, objects defined by artificial rules such as a law, a treaty,
a cadaster definition, lines on a map etc. They remain fixed until some new
regulation or a natural event changes their boundary.
The latter is the case, for instance, of the Alps border between Italy and
Switzerland, which is currently being changed by global heating causing a large
glacier to melt, altering the border line. As a consequence this has “moved” a
mountain hut from Italy into Switzerland without any change in the border
treaties nor, of course, any physical removal of the hut. I believe that at
present the hut is partly in Italy and partly in Switzerland and it is slowly
"going abroad", so giving diplomats the time to rearrange the border definition
to keep into account the glacier change. People working in the hut have
jokingly asked if they should use their passport to go to the lavatory.
Apart from the above anecdote, fiat spatial objects are relatively stable in
time although they may change at intervals.
As such they are instances of E92 Spacetime Volume and have a 4-dimensional
nature, one dimension along time and three along space. I will also send you a
paper of mine with some suggestions on how to deal with this complexity in
simpler cases. In sum, a space-time volume is a blob in the 4-dimensional
space; if you like the image, E92 resemble a potato. Fiat spatial objects are a
sort of approximation to this, as they remain (relatively) constant in time,
with a possible discontinuity at fixed instants e.g. when a law (a treaty,
whatever) changes their border definition. This act “slices" the potato into
“cylinders”.
For example the USA is a fiat object (it is also a number of other things, but
that's another story). Ignoring small changes due to erosion of its coasts, it
did not change since August 21, 1959 when Hawaii became a State; the last
previous change being in January of the same year when Alaska was also
proclaimed a state. Although changes occur so slowly, there is no doubt that
they occur, and therefore make USA a Spacetime Volume.
Best regards
Franco
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
> Il giorno 15 mag 2018, alle ore 18:13, Richard Light
> ha scritto:
>
> Hi,
>
> Further to my previous question, and following a trawl through CRMgeo, I have
> another one. :-)
> How should one represent an administrative unit (such as Burgess Hill, being
> the entity which is managed by Burgess Hill Town Council) using the CRM?
> It's not a place (certainly not as defined in E53_Place); nor is it an
> E74_Group. It's the result of collective human actions and decisions.
> Administrative units have a temporal dimension, so should be a subclass of
> E7_Activity. They have physical extent (possibly changing over time). There
> are different types of administrative unit, some of which are specifically
> relevant to cultural heritage studies: registration districts; census
> 'pieces'.
> Administrative units are created, destroyed, merged with other administrative
> units, etc. They have relationships with other administrative units,
> both generic containment/adjacency ones, and also more specific 'administered
> by' ones.
>
> Many local museum collections cite administrative units when recording
> information about the provenance of objects ("metalworking tools from Little
> Potton"). They are central to much genealogical research.
>
> What do others think? Out of scope?
> Richard
> --
> Richard Light
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11
Form is irrelevant here as it does not relate to chemical-physical-biological properties of the sample. Freezing may be a concern because it can kill bacteria so change one of the characteristics of a limnological sample. For other analyses, each one has a range of temperatures for validity, specified in its protocol. Probably 0 C is not in this range for most of the analyses. In conclusion, don’t take limnological samples in winter, especially in Norway. Stay home and watch old movies on TV, or play with ontologies. Franco Il giorno mer 11 apr 2018 alle 10:57 Christian-Emil Smith Ore < c.e.s@iln.uio.no> ha scritto: > Hi > To get some intuiton here: > I workde with a database for a limnological collection of water samples > from Norwegian streams. The water samples are store in small sample tubes. > The form of the tube is not of interest. The sample is messured in > milliliters. Does such a sample have a stable form? If the sample is frozen > (in a an elastic tube),is it the same sample? > > Best, > Christian-Emil > > From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios > Velios > Sent: 11 April 2018 10:15 > To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11 > > I broadly agree with the points made in the discussion: > > 1) If interventive conservation work changes the identity of an object > then it has failed. If anything, conservation work should maintain the > identity of the object. > > 2) Destructive testing in conservation requires a sample. > Non-destructive testing, such as taking a photo under UV or IR light, > does not require a sample. I think S13 has to be defined as > "taken/removed". > > All the best, > > Thanasis > > > > > On 10/04/18 18:38, Franco Niccolucci wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > I agree with Martin that the current scope note is formally correct: "no > > stability of form required", means that form may need to remain stable > > or it is not relevant for the experiment. > > > > The reason is that for a sample the identity criteria may not concern > > the form, and possibly they also may not concern volume, weight, colour, > > etc. A sample is characterized by some property which enables the > > experimenter to consider the sample as representative of something else, > > usually (but not necessarily) a larger thing. > > So it is not strange at all that in some cases one may split a sample > > into two (or more) smaller parts, each one still being a (the?) sample; > > in other cases this is impossible. “Splittable” samples are chosen > > because they represent some characteristic of the Amount of Matter from > > which they are *selected* for which the volume is not relevant. > > For example, to analyze a large quantity of water one may take one dl > > (0.1 l). But also dividing that sample into 10 parts, the 1 cc (0.01 l) > > sample(s) is still the (same) sample. One might think to indefinitely > > continue the splitting process (if they have nothing better to do) as > > long as the chemical properties remain the same. But, when ideally the > > splitting arrives to the molecule level, further splitting must stop or > > the sample is lost. So indefinite sample “splittability” is not an > > absolute property even for those “splittable” samples, but may need to > > stop at some point, where further splitting the sample does not produce > > additional samples, it simply destroys it. > > > > I would say that what counts for being a sample is how you regard it: > > the nose of Michelangelo's David may be a sample of the marble, or > > simply be a detached piece of the statue which one may consider from an > > artistic perceptive as an individual cultural object. In either case, > > please do not remove it from the statue. > > > > There are actually cases in which the identity characteristics of the > > sample do not require physically removing it from the object it is part > > of. Here are some techniques that do not require physical sample > detachment > > > > - photography (visible light, UV, IR) > > - radiography > > - ecography > > - tomography > > - XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) > > - multispectral analysis > > - colorimetry > > - infrared reflectography > > > > This is why some time ago I argued against the use of the verb “remove” > > or “take" in the S13 scope note. In the above cases, no removing is > > required, and that’s why restorers prefer such techniques to those > > requiring destruction of a (small) piece of the artefact. I would better > > use “select” as quick-and-dirty solution. &g
Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11
Again agree with Martin (what’s happening to me?) and like Wiggins, I have a copy of it on my night table for night meditation. In my opinion the issue raised by Daria belongs to the category of the Ship of Theseus paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 10 apr 2018, alle ore 19:06, Martin Doerr ha > scritto: > > Dear Daria, > > This is a much debated question. I follow the theory of David Wiggins > (Sameness and Substance Renewed (Cambridge, 2001)), which appears to me to be > consistent. There is no natural identity to something material. We need to > specify under which category we consider some matter. The category must > provide identity criteria beforehand. The same matter may participate in > different "things" of different identity. The identity conditions of a > category must serve a purpose. > The purpose is identified by a question. > > So, question: "Is this an original Varsari? " could be defined in terms of > the actual matter Varsari had in his hands and the way he gave it artistic > shape, regardless later modifications. We could define the end of existence > when major parts of the paint layer are lost, or when the last major part is > lost, or latest, when the whole paint layer is lost. > > This category of "original painting" would "answer": "still the same". > Another definition may be based on phases and degrees of replaced matter. But > they easily run into problems with > environmentally caused degradation and natural decay of material, which is a > continuous process. So, change of a > physical object is inevitable and continuous. It is much more prominent in > living beings. > > I would associate conservation states rather with secondary features of > objects and not with their overall identity. > Again we need a definition of relevant traits separating one from the other. > > I agree that physical objects can change form. This is why we talk about > "relative stability". The specific type should determine which deviation of > form is "unnatural","renders the object unusable", "destroyed" or whatever > may determine its practical end of existence and transition into something > else or disappearance. > > Best, > > Martin > > On 4/10/2018 4:57 PM, Дарья Юрьевна Гук wrote: >> Maybe I am not right, but a state of conservation is under discussion. >> "Vasari" before of after restoration. Is it the same identity? Same Vasari, >> artefact could change form but we tell about it "the same item". >> >> >> With kind regards, >> Daria Hookk >> >> Senior Researcher of >> the dept. of archaeology of >> Eastern Europe and Siberia of >> the State Hermitage Museum, >> ICOMOS member >> >> >> 19, Санкт-Петербург, Дворцовая наб.34 >> Тел. (812) 3121966; мест. 2548 >> Факс (812) 7109009 >> E-mail: >> ho...@hermitage.ru >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: Martin Doerr [ >> mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr >> ] >> To: >> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> >> Sent: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:05:02 +0400 >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11 >> >> >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> By the way, an interesting aspect of samples is that they can be split >>> without loosing their identity. Obviously, there is >>> some complexity in the object-ness of the sample versus its substance. >>> Tracing split samples is a practical issue in labs. >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> martin >>> >>> On 4/10/2018 1:16 PM, Martin Doerr wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Martijn, >>>> >>>> A better formulation is always welcome! >>>> >>>> Logically, it is correct: "no stability of form is required" does NOT >>>> exclude stability of form. I give explicitly the example "the sequence >>>> of layers of a bore core". The point is, that we take a sample for a >>>> particular feature it will be a witness for. The identity of the >>>> sample and its duration of existence as a sample depends on the kind >>>> of feature that needs to be preserved, be it a stratigraphy, a >>>> chemical composition or whatever. Consequently, it can be diminished >>>> quite substanstia
Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11
Dear all, I agree with Martin that the current scope note is formally correct: "no stability of form required", means that form may need to remain stable or it is not relevant for the experiment. The reason is that for a sample the identity criteria may not concern the form, and possibly they also may not concern volume, weight, colour, etc. A sample is characterized by some property which enables the experimenter to consider the sample as representative of something else, usually (but not necessarily) a larger thing. So it is not strange at all that in some cases one may split a sample into two (or more) smaller parts, each one still being a (the?) sample; in other cases this is impossible. “Splittable” samples are chosen because they represent some characteristic of the Amount of Matter from which they are *selected* for which the volume is not relevant. For example, to analyze a large quantity of water one may take one dl (0.1 l). But also dividing that sample into 10 parts, the 1 cc (0.01 l) sample(s) is still the (same) sample. One might think to indefinitely continue the splitting process (if they have nothing better to do) as long as the chemical properties remain the same. But, when ideally the splitting arrives to the molecule level, further splitting must stop or the sample is lost. So indefinite sample “splittability” is not an absolute property even for those “splittable” samples, but may need to stop at some point, where further splitting the sample does not produce additional samples, it simply destroys it. I would say that what counts for being a sample is how you regard it: the nose of Michelangelo's David may be a sample of the marble, or simply be a detached piece of the statue which one may consider from an artistic perceptive as an individual cultural object. In either case, please do not remove it from the statue. There are actually cases in which the identity characteristics of the sample do not require physically removing it from the object it is part of. Here are some techniques that do not require physical sample detachment - photography (visible light, UV, IR) - radiography - ecography - tomography - XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) - multispectral analysis - colorimetry - infrared reflectography This is why some time ago I argued against the use of the verb “remove” or “take" in the S13 scope note. In the above cases, no removing is required, and that’s why restorers prefer such techniques to those requiring destruction of a (small) piece of the artefact. I would better use “select” as quick-and-dirty solution. Exercise: define the identity criteri for the above technologies and check if the sample is splittable, and if so where splitting must stop before destroying the sample. Best Franco By the way, the S11 scope note text is a bit cryptic: "with the intention to be representative for some material qualities of the instance of S10 Material Substantial or part of it was taken from for further analysis" there should at least be a comma after “of” and “from” (or the sentence should be rephrased), and why “further" analysis? Maybe: "with the intention to be representative for some material qualities of the instance of S10 Material Substantial or part of it, from which it was taken for analysis" F. Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 10 apr 2018, alle ore 15:05, Martin Doerr ha > scritto: > > Dear All, > > By the way, an interesting aspect of samples is that they can be split > without loosing their identity. Obviously, there is > some complexity in the object-ness of the sample versus its substance. > Tracing split samples is a practical issue in labs. > > Any thoughts? > > Best, > > martin > > On 4/10/2018 1:16 PM, Martin Doerr wrote: >> Dear Martijn, >> >> A better formulation is always welcome! >> >> Logically, it is correct: "no stability of form is required" does NOT >> exclude stability of form. I give explicitly the example "the sequence of >> layers of a bore core". The point is, that we take a sample for a particular >> feature it will be a witness for. The identity of the sample and its >> duration of existence as a sample depends on the kind of feature that needs >> to be preserved, be it a stratigraphy, a chemical composition or whatever. >> Consequently, it can be diminished quite substanstially without loosing this >> identity, whereas other impacts may not change its discreteness as a stable >> piece of matter, but destroy the relevant composition. >> >> Proposals welcome. >> >> Best, >> >> Martin >> >> On 4/9/2018 11:15 PM, P.M. van Leusen wrote
Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90
Hm. The current way of representing something similar (but different) to what you propose is: E70 Thing -> P43 has dimension -> E54 Dimension -> P90 has value -> E60 Number The path starts from Things (and not CRM Entities) and ends to Numbers (and not Primitive Values, i.e. also Strings, Time Primitives and whatever we can invent in the future): it gives a numeric value to a thing. The proposed change would allow giving, through the "new" P90, a generic value defined as E59 Primitive Value, i.e anything, also to E2 Temporal Entities, E53 Places etc, all subclasses of E1. What can be an example of the Primitive Value of a Temporal Entity or of a Place? For example “Bronze Age”, an instance of E4 Period, cannot have a primitive value whatever; it may have a Time Span and take place somewhere in a Place. Time spans may P83/84 have durations, instances of E54. Dimensions would need to be considered not only as something that can be measured with numbers only: for example “poor - fair - good - excellent” would be acceptable for the space of Values, same for “strings of UTF8 characters”. It is not necessary to specify what the values is, as it by definition could be anything So I would rather suggest to leave the domain of P43 as is, i.e. Things only; and the range of P90, as you propose, could become E59, i.e. strings or anything else to be created as subclass of E59, without short-cutting the above. This allows specifying what we are talking about the Thing (its length, its social value, its ranking on its Facebook page, its translation into Estonian), i.e. the dimension; and how we measure it if desired, - E58 Measurement Unit. Best Franco PS This discussion reminds me of a commercial advertising a credit card. It showed somebody buying a ring for the beloved one, paying the dinner with her, buying flowers, and ended saying that one can buy everything with the card, but romance has no price. Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 21 feb 2018, alle ore 17:13, Robert Sanderson > ha scritto: > > > > Definitely in favor of this. Linguistic Objects can have values. > Appellations have values. Digital Images have values. Etc. > > > > Rob > > > > > > From: Crm-sig on behalf of "Carlisle, Philip" > > Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 4:04 PM > To: "crm-sig (Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr)" > Subject: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90 > > > > Dear all, > Naïve question. > > > > Is there any reason why P90 has value could not/should not change its domain > and range from: > > > > Domain:Range > > E54 Dimension E60 Number > > > > to > > > > E1 CRM Entity E59 Primitive Value > > > > I look forward to you answers > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Phil Carlisle > > Knowledge Organization Specialist > > Listing Group, Historic England > > Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 > > > > http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ > > http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ > > > > Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are > valued for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer > focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do. > > > > > > > > > > We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, and > protect it for the future. Historic England is a public body, and we champion > everyone’s heritage, across England. > Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | Instagram Sign up to our newsletter > > > Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's remarkable story > and its impact on the world. A History of England in 100 Places sponsored by > Ecclesiastical. > > We have moved! Our new London office is at 4th Floor, Cannon Bridge House, 25 > Dowgate Hill, London, EC4R 2YA. > > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal > views which are not the views of Historic England unless specifically stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and > notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information > in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic > England may become publicly available. > > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 295 homework
Dear Martin I do not want to bore the SIG members any more, but your argument serves my cause, and not yours. Let me remind that the discussion is about an example of (E78 Curated Holding which is a subclass of)) E24 Physical Man-Made Thing, i.e. the hard disks or whatever is carrying at MDZ the E73 Information Object. Undoubtedly E78 inherits the physicality of the superclass E24. The new E78 example says: 'The "Digital Collections" of the "Munich DigitiZation Center (MDZ)" accessible via https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/ at least in January 2018.' On the same MDZ web page, under the heading “Digital Collections”, MDZ offers services to Search Collections, Explore the Collections or thematic groupings. Do they mean they have developed a way to enable me to walk the hard disks bit by bit (i.e. explore the E24/E78) as the example would imply, or rather the information of which they are carriers (i.e. E73)? It is probably the second. MDZ and its users is very little interested in hard disks (E78) and more in the content they carry (E73). Then, their use of “Digital Collection” refers to a grouping of E73 instances rather than to hardware. Apparently, Martin does the opposite. But, I surrender, I do not want to become a hater in the SIG community nor see my messages automatically redirected to the SPAM folder. Unfortunately I can’t attend the Cologne meeting, where we could have continued this passionate discussion, possibly adding other very interesting themes like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. By the way, what is an angel? An E38 actor, an E90 Symbolic Object, an ARRGH Best wishes Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 11 gen 2018, alle ore 14:18, Martin Doerr ha > scritto: > > Dear All, > > I am fascinated by your enthousiasm and good comments, BUT if anyone of you > had opened the link, > > https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?=en > > you would have seen, that they use the term "Digital Collections", and not me! > > So, I improve: > > * The "Digital Collections" of the "Munich DigitiZation Center (MDZ)" > accessible via https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/ at least in January 2018. > > and I insist NOT to use any other term in that example than the real life > one... > > Best, > > martin > > On 1/11/2018 1:35 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: >> The number two is what all sets with two elements have in common or >> according to Gottlob Frege the number two is to count to two etc etc. >> >> Most dictionaries I have checked focus on the difference between digital as >> discrete signals and analog as continuous signals. I think this will change >> since digital already has a tendency to denote something connected to >> computer/non-analog electronic gadgets/devices. >> >> After creating and developing what has been called digital collections the >> last 25 years and working together with the scholars curating such beasts, >> my observation is that a digital collection is very similar to the >> traditional "physical" collections. There are of course some differences. >> You cannot really store a stuffed mammoth in a computer system without >> destroying the computer system. You may store a digital image depicting it. >> A digital collection is a collection of data (maybe information but let us >> drop that debate here) which mostly could have been stored on paper, >> magnetic tape etc, but in the case of a digital collection it will be stored >> in a computer system. One usually don’t care about the representation level >> (bit direction, sound waves in mercury (Turing) etc.). >> >> A (digital) collection maybe copied and published as a finished unit. My >> copy will not be the collection. It will be a copy (of the content) of the >> collection at a given point in time. It is definitely a physical thing. >> >> To make the discussion more complex: The curatorial aspect is also important >> when using the word collection. A collection can be an actor + a physical >> (data) set + the activity of curating the (data) set. >> >> In the fourth example on could put the word Digital in parenthesis or delete >> it: >> The (Digital) Collections of the Munich DigitiZation Center (MDZ) >> accessible via >> https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/ >> at least in January 2018 >> >> Best >> Christian-Emil >> >> From: Crm-sig >> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci >> >> >> Sent: 11 January 2018 11:03 &g
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 295 homework
Dear Achille my position is to deprecate the use of the term “digital collection” to precisely designate whatever, as it is ambiguous (agree with Thanis). If used colloquially, it is an acceptable term to designate the assembly of various digital objects. In no case it can refer to or exemplify an (instance of) E28 Conceptual Object, which is not digital; nor to an E84 Information Carrier, now subsumed by the mother class E24 Physical Man-Made Thing, because they are (were) "persistent physical carriers for instances of E73 Information Object”, thus they can’t be digital. The proposed example for E78, subclass of E24 "The Digital Collections of the Munich DigitiZation Center (MDZ) accessible via https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/ at least in January 2018. is not wrong per se, as here the term may designate the hard disk (portion) where such “collections” are stored, but might be misleading and confusing, as it commonly and colloquially refers to the content (E78) of the said hard disk, and not to the physical storage. And if it is a hard disk, it is not digital, it is hard and possibly stores digital information; but may also be a pencil sharpener, as you well know, if you attach abrasive paper on top of it; or an improvised weapon, if you get angry and want to kill your office mates. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 11 gen 2018, alle ore 11:45, Achille Felicetti > ha scritto: > > Dear Franco, > > I fully support you threefold view of the digital world, but I have also the > impression, in the case of a digital collection, that the particular > situation under which such an entity exists, needs some specific > conceptualisation. In particular, my question is: in which of the three > levels you mentioned are we acting while talking about a “digital collection”? > > If we consider the conceptual level, we have to observe that, according with > your view, it should be constituted by the sequence of 0-1 digits necessary > to express it; but this sequence does not exists “a priori” at an > archetypical level (like the conceptual number “two” in your example) in our > mind; it only starts its existence once the circuits have made their job and > the electrical sequence is created. Only at this point I can describe it and > express it with all the 0 & 1 digits resulting from this (physical) process. > So it is an “a posteriori” knowledge inferred after the physical process. > > Another question concerns the stability of the digits and the order they are > arranged in: does the modification of this arrangement affects the nature of > my digital object? > > Again, I have some difficulties in ascribing a digital object to the pure > level of the abstracts or representative things … > > A. > >> Il giorno 11 gen 2018, alle ore 11:03, Franco Niccolucci >> ha scritto: >> >> Thanks Achille. >> >> That sentence about 0s and 1s is there probably because people, and >> especially humanists like dictionary editors, don’t understand the nature of >> numbers. >> >> The number “two” is the number two, not two cows, two oranges or two humans. >> Its definition does not need any physical representation and even abstracts >> from any conceptual way of representing it, i.e. with a binary system (0s >> and 1s) or sexagesimal one. Actually in most cases, and in most people’s >> minds, two is 1 and 2, not 0 and 1, which comes in because the computer >> representation uses a flip-flop circuit. >> >> This is very clear from Martin’s distinction quoted in some previous email >> between Maxwells’ equations and the way they are formally represented, and >> then printed in a book. So there are three levels: the concept, the >> conceptual representation, and its physical footprint. Of these, two are >> described by the CRM, the intermediate one being probably considered as >> irrelevant. >> >> Franco >> >> >> Prof. Franco Niccolucci >> Director, VAST-LAB >> PIN - U. of Florence >> Scientific Coordinator >> ARIADNE - PARTHENOS >> >> Piazza Ciardi 25 >> 59100 Prato, Italy >> >> >>> Il giorno 11 gen 2018, alle ore 10:06, Achille Felicetti >>> ha scritto: >>> >>> Dear Franco, >>> >>>> Il giorno 10 gen 2018, alle ore 21:52, Franco Niccolucci >>>> ha scritto: >>>> >>>> Quoting Martin below >>>> >>>> [By Digital Collections] ... we do not mean the servers as a whole, but >>>> only the material signal
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 295 homework
Thanks Achille. That sentence about 0s and 1s is there probably because people, and especially humanists like dictionary editors, don’t understand the nature of numbers. The number “two” is the number two, not two cows, two oranges or two humans. Its definition does not need any physical representation and even abstracts from any conceptual way of representing it, i.e. with a binary system (0s and 1s) or sexagesimal one. Actually in most cases, and in most people’s minds, two is 1 and 2, not 0 and 1, which comes in because the computer representation uses a flip-flop circuit. This is very clear from Martin’s distinction quoted in some previous email between Maxwells’ equations and the way they are formally represented, and then printed in a book. So there are three levels: the concept, the conceptual representation, and its physical footprint. Of these, two are described by the CRM, the intermediate one being probably considered as irrelevant. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 11 gen 2018, alle ore 10:06, Achille Felicetti > ha scritto: > > Dear Franco, > >> Il giorno 10 gen 2018, alle ore 21:52, Franco Niccolucci >> ha scritto: >> >> Quoting Martin below >> >> [By Digital Collections] ... we do not mean the servers as a whole, but only >> the material signal encoding on the media. >> >> This statement is an oxymoron. Whatever material thing cannot be digital, >> not even “signals”: according to my Oxford Dictionary, digital means >> "expressed as a series of the digits 0 and 1". In a collection, whatever it >> is, you just get more 0’s and 1’s but no material thing. > > For completeness it should also be noted that the Oxford Dictionary goes on > to explain that the 0 and 1 digits are: “typically represented by values of a > physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization”, which seems, in > some way, to refer to some kind of “physicality” still present “in the > background” :-) > > A. > >> >> Thanasis is right as regards deprecating the use of the expression “Digital >> Collections”. This term does not mean a material thing also for the authors >> of the Oxford Dictionary, besides the many readers he mentions that include >> myself. >> >> I may agree that the “encoding on the media” consists in (perhaps temporary >> and reversible) alterations of the media itself, possibly with only two >> different states eg black/white, positive/negative, etc, to encode the >> content according to a predefined code; and recorded there magnetically, >> optically or carved (the Code of Hammurabi kept at the Louvre, unfortunately >> not with a binary code); in any case altering (some property of) the media >> itself. It could also be Martin Doerr’s voice, analogically recorded on >> vinyl on 10/01/2018 from 21:48 to 22:30 while reading the Code of Hammurabi >> in Akkadian (with a nice voice but with a terrible German accent, >> unfortunately) . >> >> So, thumbs down for "digital collections”. >> >> Franco >> >> >> Prof. Franco Niccolucci >> Director, VAST-LAB >> PIN - U. of Florence >> Scientific Coordinator >> ARIADNE - PARTHENOS >> >> Piazza Ciardi 25 >> 59100 Prato, Italy >> >> >>> Il giorno 10 gen 2018, alle ore 21:02, Martin Doerr >>> ha scritto: >>> >>> Dear Thanasi, >>> >>> On 1/10/2018 1:30 PM, Athanasios Velios wrote: >>>> Shouldn't this: >>>> >>>> § The Digital Collections of the Munich DigitiZation Center (MDZ) >>>> accessible via https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/ at least in January >>>> 2018. >>>> >>>> be instead: >>>> >>>> § The group of servers (hardware) holding the Digital Collections of the >>>> Munich DigitiZation Center (MDZ) accessible via >>>> https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/ at least in January 2018. >>>> >>>> The term "Digital Collections" will not necessarily mean a physical thing >>>> for many readers. >>> Actually we do not mean the servers as a whole, but only the material >>> signal encoding on the media. This interpretation gives correct answers >>> that the collection can be destroyed, and is a "holding" in the hands of >>> the maintainers, i.e., physically kept, and that it can change like a >>> physical thing loosing its previous form. >>> The immaterial it
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 295 homework
All these examples show that the issue exist! My opinion in short: there is of course a distinction between “hard” and “soft” copies. Hard (i.e. material) copies involve modifying matter; soft (i.e. immaterial) ones don’t. Hard copies are affected by degradation, soft ones don’t. Soft copies may be digital (e.g. music on a cd or on a hard disk) or analog (e.g. same music on vinyl) or ... (same music transcribed on music paper); hard copies are what they are. Association of soft stuff with the hard copy is rather subjective: BA BA BA BA may correspond to the beginning of Beethoven’s 5th symphony as well as Herbert von Karajan’s & Berliner Philarmoniker Orchestra digital version now playing on my Mac. There may be a “canonical” association between the soft stuff I receive and perceive, and a (master) hard version, e.g. between the 5th symphony and Beethoven’s original manuscript kept at Staatsbibliotek Berlin. I think most of the above is addressed in FRBR and CRM uses a simplification to deal with immaterial content, as it is considered to be borderline within its scope. But sometimes (this may not be the case) oversimplification turns into confusion. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 11 gen 2018, alle ore 08:02, Дарья Юрьевна Гук > ha scritto: > > Real time transfered image through Skype? my real-time digital copy? > > > With kind regards, > Daria Hookk > > Senior Researcher of > the dept. of archaeology of > Eastern Europe and Siberia of > the State Hermitage Museum, > ICOMOS member > > > 19, Санкт-Петербург, Дворцовая наб.34 > Тел. (812) 3121966; мест. 2548 > Факс (812) 7109009 > E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 295 homework
Not really, Daria. It is not digital, it possibly represents/is the support of a digital encoding, same as a selfie of me on my iphone is not my face. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 10 gen 2018, alle ore 22:41, Дарья Юрьевна Гук > ha scritto: > > QR-code is very phisical (on surface) and absolutely digital, because > presents 0 & 1. > > > With kind regards, > Daria Hookk
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 295 homework
Quoting Martin below [By Digital Collections] ... we do not mean the servers as a whole, but only the material signal encoding on the media. This statement is an oxymoron. Whatever material thing cannot be digital, not even “signals”: according to my Oxford Dictionary, digital means "expressed as a series of the digits 0 and 1". In a collection, whatever it is, you just get more 0’s and 1’s but no material thing. Thanasis is right as regards deprecating the use of the expression “Digital Collections”. This term does not mean a material thing also for the authors of the Oxford Dictionary, besides the many readers he mentions that include myself. I may agree that the “encoding on the media” consists in (perhaps temporary and reversible) alterations of the media itself, possibly with only two different states eg black/white, positive/negative, etc, to encode the content according to a predefined code; and recorded there magnetically, optically or carved (the Code of Hammurabi kept at the Louvre, unfortunately not with a binary code); in any case altering (some property of) the media itself. It could also be Martin Doerr’s voice, analogically recorded on vinyl on 10/01/2018 from 21:48 to 22:30 while reading the Code of Hammurabi in Akkadian (with a nice voice but with a terrible German accent, unfortunately) . So, thumbs down for "digital collections”. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 10 gen 2018, alle ore 21:02, Martin Doerr ha > scritto: > > Dear Thanasi, > > On 1/10/2018 1:30 PM, Athanasios Velios wrote: >> Shouldn't this: >> >> § The Digital Collections of the Munich DigitiZation Center (MDZ) >> accessible via https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/ at least in January 2018. >> >> be instead: >> >> § The group of servers (hardware) holding the Digital Collections of the >> Munich DigitiZation Center (MDZ) accessible via >> https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/ at least in January 2018. >> >> The term "Digital Collections" will not necessarily mean a physical thing >> for many readers. > Actually we do not mean the servers as a whole, but only the material signal > encoding on the media. This interpretation gives correct answers that the > collection can be destroyed, and is a "holding" in the hands of the > maintainers, i.e., physically kept, and that it can change like a physical > thing loosing its previous form. > The immaterial item would not change, reside on multiple carriers. An update > would create a new derivative, i.e., another thing, not affecting other > copies around. > The material interpretation is problematic if the content is moved around > servers. > > Another interpretation is that of a "volatile dataset" we at FORTH used in > the PARTHENOS project, which uses the logical condition that there is only > one representative version of the data object at any point in time, > regardless carrier. It updates like a material object. This may in general > create a problem, if the authority identifying the correct representative > version not clear. I tried to be neutral to this dilemma by using the URL, > which points to the physical "location", under which the representative > version will appear, and makes the storage system an internal issue of the > maintainer. > > Consider a "move" of the database to another storage system and a > simultaneous update. Then, formally, neither the carrier nor the content is > the same, but it is still the same "digital library". > > Note, that if I make a copy of a digital library, I get an immaterial object, > which will not be representative after the first change to the original, > without me doing anything. Hence, the digital library does not behave like an > Information Object in the sense of the CRM. > > All the best, > > Martin >> >> All the best, >> >> Thanasis >> >> On 04/01/18 17:39, Martin Doerr wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Here my proposals: >>> >>> >>> "ISSUE 295 >>> >>> Following Martin’s proposal to remove class E84 since it does not satisfy >>> the requirements proposed on issue 340, the sig proposed the examples of >>> material carrier of a digital object to be moved to E24 of an E25 digital >>> feature and possibly to E78 οr put example for E78 of Server holding >>> Digital Asset Management. >>> >>> Finally, the sig asked Martin to make an example. The issue will be >>> complete with example
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Belief values
Dear all the issue is extensively discussed in this paper: Niccolucci, F. & Hermon, S. Expressing reliability with CIDOC CRM, Int J Digit Libr (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-016-0195-1 I can send a draft copy to those interested - but not broadcast it for copyright reasons. Shortly, the idea is to consider the assessment of the assignment as an E14 Measurement, which measures a dimension, the uncertainty or better the reliability of this assignment. The outcome E60 Number of this measurement can be anything: a number, a function, an ordinal value. It is linked to the dimension by P90 has value. We were actually proposing a numeric approach and that’s why we end up with a number. I tend to disagree with Robert’s statement that quantification is in this case useless for public systems. In my opinion it is instead paramount for data reuse, as the stars in Booking.com reviews are paramount to choose an hotel. It doesn’t matter if the statement “Martin Doerr is an alien from Saturn” has reliability 0.01 for you and 0.1 for me; people who know you and me can draw conclusions exactly because they know you and me. This, regardless the truth of the statement, which every SIG member knows to be true :-) Perhaps the explanation of the “subjective" approach to this quantification may provide additional insight. references 7 and 8 in the paper explain this approach in a quite difficult and complicate way, that’s why I quote them. The paper also addresses how this compares to the CRMinf approach and I6 Belief value. If on this regard something changed in CRMinf after early 2016, it is of course not taken into account. Finally, there are provision to document who said that, why, and where it is documented. Best regards Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 03 ott 2017, alle ore 18:15, Robert Sanderson > ha scritto: > > > We have dealt with this situation by using AttributeAssignment, as in RDF the > .1 (and .2) properties would require reification anyway. > It can also cover “workshop of” or “style of” style attributions which are > often uncertainty about the individual. > > We resisted trying to quantify uncertainty, as from an interoperability > viewpoint, there’s very little to be gained from saying that one person is > 5/10 sure of an assertion whereas someone else is 4/10 certain… the > temptation is to use the strength of belief as an indicator of likelihood of > truth, rather than the state of mind of the asserting agent. The first would > be useful but impossible, we consider the second not to be useful for > interoperability between public systems. > (Which is not to say it’s not valuable, just not in our scope of work) > > Rob > > On 10/3/17, 6:04 AM, "Crm-sig on behalf of martin" > wrote: > >Dear All, >Following a request from Dominic how to deal with uncertain associations, > > >such as "probably author of" I'd like to discuss a solution expanding > properties >with the "Property Class" PC and adding a "certainty value" as a ".2" > property for all those cases in which the belief is the one of the > maintainers of the knowledge base, > > >in contrast to an explicit inference by a particular actor. > > >Best, > > >martin > >-- > >-- > 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 | >-- > > > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 332
No, no, as any CRM property it is bi-directional. Changing the direction in the scope note would be useful, but would not have any effect on my comment. I was only making a joke on the tautological scope note, which explains (ahem) that the meaning of "O25 contains (is contained)" is exactly “is contained”. This is meant to point out that scope notes are definitions and should be carefully drafted. In mathematics, you cannot define a triangle just as "a triangle", you need to state that it is "a polygon with three edges/vertices". Reference to M. de la Palisse as possible author of the scope note is explained, a bit verbosely, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_La_Palice Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 20 set 2017, alle ore 16:43, Robert Sanderson > ha scritto: > > Dear Franco, Martin, > > To make sure I understand your comment, are you pointing out the direction of > the predicate is the opposite to the direction implied by the scope note? > The predicate is that the subject X contains Y (X > Y) whereas the scope > note expresses the relationship as the subject X being contained in Y (X < Y). > > If so, then I agree it would be nice to change the text of the scope note to > have it align with the relationship’s direction :) > > Rob > > > On 9/20/17, 5:42 AM, "Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci" > wrote: > >it looks very useful, but: > >“O25 contains (is contained in) >[...] an instance of S10 Material Substantial was or is contained for some > time in [...]” > >Of course: 'X is contained in Y' means that X is contained in Y :-) > > Was the scope note proposed by M. de la Palisse? > >Apart from that, it’s a great idea. > >Franco > >Prof. Franco Niccolucci >Director, VAST-LAB >PIN - U. of Florence >Scientific Coordinator >ARIADNE - PARTHENOS > >Piazza Ciardi 25 >59100 Prato, Italy > > >> Il giorno 20 set 2017, alle ore 11:38, martin ha >> scritto: >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> I propose the following property for CRMSci: >> >> O25 contains (is contained in) >> >> >> Domain: S10 Material Substantial >> >> Range:S10 Material Substantial >> >> Superproperty of:E18 Physical Thing. P46 is composed of (forms part of): E18 >> Physical Thing >> >> Quantification:many to many (0,n:0,n) >> >> >> Scope note: This property describes that an instance of S10 Material >> Substantial was or is contained for some time in another instance of S10 >> Material Substantial regardless if the identity of the involved instances is >> based on the persistence of the form of material or on material substance >> changing form. >> >> >> >> In First Order Logic: >> >> O25(x,y) ⊃ E18(x) >> >> O25(x,y) ⊃ E18(y) >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> 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 >> | >> -- >> >> >> ___ >> 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 332
it looks very useful, but: “O25 contains (is contained in) [...] an instance of S10 Material Substantial was or is contained for some time in [...]” Of course: 'X is contained in Y' means that X is contained in Y :-) Was the scope note proposed by M. de la Palisse? Apart from that, it’s a great idea. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 20 set 2017, alle ore 11:38, martin ha > scritto: > > Dear All, > > > > I propose the following property for CRMSci: > > O25 contains (is contained in) > > > Domain: S10 Material Substantial > > Range:S10 Material Substantial > > Superproperty of:E18 Physical Thing. P46 is composed of (forms part of): E18 > Physical Thing > > Quantification:many to many (0,n:0,n) > > > Scope note: This property describes that an instance of S10 Material > Substantial was or is contained for some time in another instance of S10 > Material Substantial regardless if the identity of the involved instances is > based on the persistence of the form of material or on material substance > changing form. > > > > In First Order Logic: > >O25(x,y) ⊃ E18(x) > > O25(x,y) ⊃ E18(y) > > > -- > > -- > 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 >| > -- > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Populated places
Further to my previous message - I didn’t scroll down your email to see the second part of it - in my opinion the simplest solution to the issue of mountains, forests etc. is typification with E55 Type; this may affect E53 Places, if you can ignore time variation and think of them as natural and almost immutable features, as it happens for mountains, valleys etc; or, using again an E92 Space-time Volume with types for forests, vineyards, etc. (and also for populated places), all of which may change along time. Typifying the general solution given in our paper fits also well with the Garden of the Hesperides or the Forest of Brocéliande. Best Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 25 ago 2017, alle ore 23:54, Francesco Beretta > ha scritto: > > Dear all, > > One of the basic place type in geonames.org is : > > > PPLpopulated placea city, town, village, or other agglomeration of > buildings where people live and work > > > A populated place in this sense means different things : > • an agglomeration of buildings; > • a community of people; > • the projection of them on the Earth surface. > > My question is: how should we model these entities and their relationship ? > > • an agglomeration of buildings -> E24_Physical_Man-Made_Thing or, more > precisely, B1 Built Work ? > • a community of people -> E74_Group or E4_Period > • the projection of both on the Earth surface -> E53_Place > > "P156_occupies" links E24 and E53: but the spatial footprint of E24 (the > agglomeration of buildings) can change over time: new, larger city walls are > built, etc. > Are these different places (E53) which are related to different time-spans ? > Or the same place but in a more abstract sense ? > > > And also: which class is suited for modelling > "FRSTforest(s)an area dominated by tree vegetation" > or > "VINSvineyardsplantings of grapevines" ? > > And for mountain or valley ? > > Can we model all this just with E53 Place and a vocabulary of types ? > > Were can I find some examples for modelling these different kinds of 'Places' > using the CRM ? > > Thank you for some hints ! > > Francesco > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Populated places
Dear Francesco, in a paper published one year ago on International Journal of Digital Libraries written by myself, Achille Felicetti and Paola Ronzino we addressed a similar issue concerning Pleiades, i.e. the mapping of their geographic entities to the CRM. I am sending you separately the paper as you can find there the details of the solution we proposed. In short, the general solution we suggest is to consider “real” Pleiades places (as opposed to imaginary, unknown or non-existing places) as instances of E92 Spacetime Volume that P161 has spatial projection on an E53 Place, which in Pleiades terminology is called a location. Notice that this E53 is the widest portion of space occupied by the related E92 in its life. If you want to consider the location extension at some specified instant, or during a specified time-span, like “Rome in the 19th century”, you need to slice the E92 at that time-span and obtain a derived Spacetime Volume, which the CRM calls E93 Presence (in my opinion, with a poetic licence), whose spatial projection gives the spatial occupation in the specified time. With geonames the situation is probably simpler as it considers, if I am not wrong, time-snapshots of places taken at the present. Actually in the paper we considered a more complicated case where the “place” may not be, or be known to be, a real one. As regards the geonames definition of PPL populated place as "a city, town, village, or other agglomeration of buildings where people live and work”, it seems to me inconsistent, vague and contradictory. When is an assemblage of housings (and factories, as it seems necessary) enough agglomerated to be a PPL? For example, are a PPL the examples of “diffused urbanization” (called so by land planners), typical of some areas, e.g. the North-East of Italy, characterized by the lack of agglomeration? Is an area populated by pensioners only a PPL, as by definition its inhabitants don’t work? What about areas inhabited by commuters, who work elsewhere? How many people are necessary to rank a place as a populated one? This definition may perhaps be used for practical purposes, and when such populated places are defined (and named) by administrative rules. Also, in my experience geonames is impractical as a gazetteer for cultural heritage, history or archaeology. Unfortunately the much more appropriate Pleiades covers only until Early Medieval geography - I don’t know if there is anything similar for later periods. I think that the above answers to your questions; it may need some further refinement if you are interested in associating to the E92 its dwellings or its inhabitants. For the buildings B1, as they can rapidly change, be built or disappear, the link between the E92 and the B1s is through the space both occupy, the E53 Place spatial projection of E92 and the location of each B1: a B1 Built Work (a building) P53 has former or current location E53 Place (the building lot) that P89 falls within E53 Place (the spatial projection of the E92, i.e. its location). For the people, a quick-and-dirty solution is P74 has current or former residence at the E53 Place, location of the PPL; but I would prefer the following construct: the E92 (the PPL) P11 had participant E74 Group (the citizenship), considering all inhabitants as participating in the existence of E92. It is interesting to note that with a little improvement the above would avoid anachronisms as buildings could be related to a town only for the time of their existence, which must be part of the E92’s time-span to which they are related through P160 has temporal projection. Interesting to think what about ruins e.g. in archaeological sites: they are still related in space, but not in time, as they survived to the town destruction; maybe also B1 should have a time dimension...but that’s anothe story. Same for people's participation (= living in) towns, with of course more mobility. Best regards Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 25 ago 2017, alle ore 23:54, Francesco Beretta > ha scritto: > > Dear all, > > One of the basic place type in geonames.org is : > > > PPLpopulated placea city, town, village, or other agglomeration of > buildings where people live and work > > > A populated place in this sense means different things : > • an agglomeration of buildings; > • a community of people; > • the projection of them on the Earth surface. > > My question is: how should we model these entities and their relationship ? > > • an agglomeration of buildings -> E24_Physical_Man-Made_Thing or, more > precisely, B1 Built Work ? > • a community of people -> E74_Group or E4_Period > • the projection of both on the Eart
Re: [Crm-sig] 3d Model example in P138
Dear Robert I have been following your remarks in the last few weeks, but for lack of time could not comment on them. However, I can do that on your latest messsge. My comment is the following question: what is a (digital) 3D model? I think I know (a good approximation of) the answer but I am not sure everybody does. Of course the definition must be robust enough to pass the Ontoclean test. Asking the above also puts a shadow of unclarity also on (digital) photos and the like. Maybe this is not relevant to CRM, maybe it is. Apologies if the question is off-topic. Best regards Franco Il giorno mar 18 apr 2017 alle 20:55 Robert Sanderson ha scritto: > > All, > > Perhaps something we can agree on … but we’ll see… > > The second example of P138 represents describes a 3D model (an E73) that > represents a sculpture. However P138 represents is defined with a domain > of a sub-class of E73, E36. > That means that digital 3D model files are actually considered to be E36 > Visual Items. Is that correct? > > If so, can we update the scope notes of E36 to include that, and change > E73 to E36 in the example for P138. > > If not … can we remove that example? And how /would/ you link a 3D model > to the work that it … represents? > > Many thanks! > > Rob > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
Re: [Crm-sig] An interesting case of rights to think about..
Dear Oyvind I was interested from the question raised by Athina as well, and started writing a reply similar to yours, but there remained some doubts, so I left it in my large drawer of open issues. I understand you suggest (as I planned to do) to model the river as an E40 Legal Body. i.e. a subclass of E39 Actor, which, according to its scope note, "comprises people, either individually or in groups, who have the potential to perform intentional actions of kinds for which someone may be held responsible. The CRM does not attempt to model the inadvertent actions of such actors.” Now, although the statement by the NZ government quoted in the article refers to the “liability” of the river, is there any intentionality in e.g. a flood? Can the river be called in court for the damages? I do not think so. In my opinion, but we should ask Maoris, the river has rights but no intentionality. It is similar to natural persons who are "unfit to plead", for example because of mental insanity or for young age, and so cannot be held responsible for their acts: they cannot have a “mens rea” (guilty mind). This consideration applies to bad behaviour, but of course it applies to good one as well: for them there is no merit or guilt in doing things. Nevertheless, such people have rights: even animals do. They can even hold “legal rights”, for example they may own things, with guardian(s) to act as trustees on their behalf. Obviously the river guardians have to do anything possible to avoid disasters, but cannot be held responsible for acts of God. So, what is the difference between them and a river authority? This deprives the news of much of its appeal: a National Park has similar “rights” although not defined as a person, which are managed by its director, the government or whatever. The Maori river story seems much more a political/philosophical question rather than a legal one. However the example, beyond the picturesque news, shows that either there is a need of rephrasing the above-mentioned scope note; or that the CRM is not interested in such situations (I would go for the latter). If so, who P75 possesses the E30 rights: the guardian, who may be held responsible, or the rightful right owner, who cannot? The E40 scope note suggests it is the guardian, and probably the same holds for the Maori river. In any case it should be explained in the E40 scope note e.g. that the person(s) having property rights on something may not be an actor because may be incapacitated to be liable and thus, by definition, cannot perform intentional actions. In this case, how do we document ownership? And what is the (CRM) relationship of the guardian to the ward? In sum: the river guardians -> E39 Actors the river itself -> E? the guardians towards the river -> P? Best regards Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 25 mar 2017, alle ore 11:15, Øyvind Eide ha > scritto: > > Dear Athina, > > I have not moved beyond the article (thanks for posting it, it is a very > useful addition to other complex land right issues!) but by reading that it > seems like the river has the right of a legal person, not an individual. Is > that right? If so, the river can be seen as an organisation, in line with the > (and connected to) a group of people (the Whanganui iwi). Or it can be seen > as an organisation connected to the two guardians, who will speak on behalf > of the legal person (the river). > > Can this be seen as similar to, for instance, a trust? Then a lawyer > appointed to speak on behalf of the trust would be in line with the two > guardians of the river. > > All the best, > > Øyvind > >> On 20 Mar 2017, at 12:57, athinak wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> relating to the rights triangle P75,P104, P105 we proposed, here is an >> interesting case of right holding: >> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being. >> The approach of the tribe is unique: the river is granted legal rights as >> human-being; can we apply this (rights possessed by river?) in the model? is >> there a possibility to find an equivalence between human's behavior and a >> behavior of a phenomenon and in what way? is there a generalization missing? >> think about this, >> BRs >> >> Athina Kritsotaki >> ___ >> 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] Intervals in E60
Richard, I think that your example about lengths is irrelevant. If you are referring to a real measurement, ISO/IEC 8 should be used, and mm is just 0.001 m. So one unit only, the standard one, and all lenghts, in serious scientific work, are in m. If one is dealing with historic documents, then there is a plethora of complicated unita and recordimg lengths stated in ancient ways requires a totally different approach. In other words, in my opinion, the right place to store ft and inches is in a (folkoristic) note and use ISQ instead. Of course, the above is almost off-topic here, it just serves to state that the ft-inch CRM issue is not an issue. Best Franco Il sabato 7 gennaio 2017, Richard Light ha scritto: > > On 2017-01-07 12:25 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > Which is born out by the ontology in the casting to RDF, in that the range is > rdfs:Literal, not xsd:integer. Good catch, thank you! > > So, it would be valid to say, for example: > > _:red a E54_Dimension ; > P90_has_value “red” ; > P91_has_unit . > > I don't think you can get away with that one! P90 has range *E60 Number*, > and that is explicitly defined to be "computable (algebraic) values such as > integers, real numbers, complex numbers, vectors, tensors etc.". > > And thus the observation that “Red Square” in MOMA is red could be a > Measurement of that Dimension? > > The concern, of course, is that some implementations will use “16” (the > string) and others 16 (the integer), which are not comparable. To which the > obvious answer is, I fully realize: Don’t do that then. > > An RDF 1.1 Literal [1] consists of a string value and a datatype IRI, > which specifies how the string should be interpreted, via a > lexical-to-value mapping. Thus, by the time your "16" is expressed in RDF > 1.1, it will be equipped with an IRI which tells you how to interpret its > string value (as xs:string or xs:integer). In the case of string values, > there is also the option of specifying a language tag. So there is no > ambiguity in the RDF logical representation, once we arrive at that point. > > The CRM properties *P90_has_value* and *P91_has_unit *give us the means > to record these string values and datatype IRIs (so long as we can agree on > a syntax for expressing 'complex' Dimensions which consist of a number of > value-unit pairs). However, RDF 1.1 defines a number of built-in data > types [2], and these don't match up to the types of unit we want to > express. They are effectively [most of] the XML Schema datatypes, > recycled. Dates and times are pretty well-served, but there is nothing to > support linear measurements (m/mm, ft/inches) or currency. We could invent > IRIs for these units as custom datatypes [3]. Alternatively, we could take > a measurement in feet and inches and record it as Rob has done below, but > with explicit typing of the values: > > _:total a Dimension ; > consists_of [ > a Dimension ; > value "3"^^xs:decimal ; > unit ], [ > a Dimension ; > value "6"^^xs:decimal ; > unit ] . > > > While the [abstract] definition of E60 Number does indeed include > intervals, it is not clear to me how one would actually express these in > RDF. > > Best wishes, > > Richard > > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#xsd-datatypes > [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Datatype_Definitions > > > Rob > > On 1/4/17, 6:57 PM, "Stephen Stead" > wrote: > > Not commenting on everything but > " The scopenotes for Dimension recommending intervals seem to be out of > date – as value is explicitly a number, it’s impossible to say 3.9-4.1 cm. " > The value is tied (via P90) to an instance of E60 Number not a number. > E60 Number includes, explicitly, intervals. > Rgds > SdS > > Stephen Stead > Tel +44 20 8668 3075 > Mob +44 7802 755 013 > E-mail ste...@paveprime.com > > LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads > > -Original Message- > From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr > ] On Behalf Of > Robert Sanderson > Sent: 04 January 2017 18:39 > To: Richard Light > ; > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 6.2.2's MonetaryAmount and Currency > > > Hi Richard, > > I agree that the Currency should be constant unless the monetary system > changes, regardless of the changing value. However that’s not what is > implied by Monetary_Amount being a subclass of Dimension, where the actual > value is independent of the approximation. For the subclass to be valid, the > features of the parent class must be valid for the child class (All Persons > are Actors, and all of the features of Actor are valid for Person). Ergo, > the proposed structure is invalid, or the scope notes for Dimension should be > changed to say that 6 inches is the face value, not the independent absolute
Re: [Crm-sig] Location of a Group
I would go for P74 has current or former residence E53 place which has domain E39 Actor, the superclass of your E74 and is thus inherited by E74. Its scope note states: "This property describes the current or former E53 Place of residence of an E39 Actor. The residence may be either the Place where the Actor resides, or a legally registered address of any kind." which seems to be what you are looking for. At first sight, no way to state the time span of such residence, untortunately. Best, Franco Il martedì 6 settembre 2016, Jean-Baptiste Pressac < jean-baptiste.pres...@univ-brest.fr> ha scritto: > Hello, > > This should not be the place for user questions, sorry for that. However, > I am wondering how to declare with the CIDOC-CRM that a E74 Group (a > company, a University, a craftman and his employees, a religious community, > a books editor) occupied one or many locations (in a broader meaning : > cities, buidings, states). I could declare that the E74 Group *P52 is > current owner of* one or more buildings (E22 Man-Made Object ?) which *P53 > has former or current location* E53 Place. But some groups do not own the > buildings they occupy. What is more, are E22 Man-Made Object the only way > to link E74 Group to E53 Place ? > Thank you, > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Pressac > > Traitement et analyse de bases de données > Production et diffusion de corpus numériques > > Centre de Recherche Bretonne et Celtique > Unité mixte de service (UMS) 3554 > 20 rue Duquesne > CS 93837 > 29238 Brest cedex 3 > > tel : +33 (0)2 98 01 68 95 > fax : +33 (0)2 98 01 63 93 > >
Re: [Crm-sig] E82 Actor Appellation Issue
hooligan Feyenoord supporters, are these an E39? or only the temporary grouping of the unidentified ones who actually did it?) but unfortunately necessary concept? “Characteristically”? Come on... Bye bye E82. E51 Contact Point - Leave. Irrelevant, bureaucratic, pernickety, unnecessary, indeterminate. Is this an official job, like “What is your job at FORTH? I am an E51 contact point! Ah, great, you must earn a good salary for that”. Also Amazon believes I am franco.niccolu...@gmail.com for my family's purchases, and I started thinking the same (my cat does as well, she’s going to send emails when hungry). Resolved with Type, same as with other more important qualifications as director, curator etc or email, skype-nickname, etc. E35 Title - Remain. Of course. An E41 Appellation (Leonardo’s Masterpiece) is not a Title (Mona Lisa), it is just an Appellation. However, there are two titles for this painting, one used in English (Mona Lisa) and one in Italian and French (La Gioconda, La Joconde), not translations of each other. This is not forbidden by the scope note, but perhaps stating that title uniqueness (beyond straight literal translation) is not implied, would clarify. This applies to other works as well, typically to movies sometimes weirdly re-titled by distributors in different countries. Since the scope note mentions that also the translation of a Title is a Title, adding that also the non-translation of a Title may be a Title would not hurt. Otherwise some people could think that “Mona Lisa” is “THE" title, while it is only “A" title. Don’t call it the English Title, classes cannot have qualificative adjuctoves. By the way what is a “work”, the term used in the scope note of E35? Why not calling it an E71 Man-made Thing, as it is? One has to go through the scope note of P102 has title, to discover it. If “work" is defined elsewhere, call it properly by name, not generically. This would re-open an old issue: is the Title, (a) the Title of the material object (E24), identified by Louvre inventory no. 779 hanging on the wall in room 6 of first floor at Louvre named (titled?) La Salle de La Joconde; or (b) the Title of the immaterial object (E28), of which the above-mentioned painting Louvre id 779 and on display at the Louvre, is the (one?) materialization; or (c) both (a) and (b). Easy (?) question for an ancient, unique painting, less easy for multiples - maybe before answering you may wish to read Walter Benjamin’s “The work of art in the Age of Mechanical Reproducibility”. Without much thinking on it, I would go (gut-feelingly) for (b). But I am going off-topic, let’s keep this discussion for another time. Possible external references, e.g. to FRBR, should however be mentioned in the scope note. Enough for you, the survivors of a SIG meeting; thanks to those who had the patience of reading up to here. For all, time for holidays now. All the best Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 03 ago 2016, alle ore 07:42, Christian-Emil Smith Ore > ha scritto: > > > > The sub classes of appellation, e.g. actor appellation and place appelletion > were introduced in crm around 2001-2002. At that time there was a view that > there were special characteristica for place name and actor names which made > it possible to detect and differenciate between them. This has been proven > to be a not correct assumption. > In pre industrial societies, at least in Norway, the name and the "address" > were mixed. > > The subclasse tree of E41 is > > E41 Appellation > E42 - > Identifier > E44 - > Place Appellation > E45 - > - Address > E46 - > - Section Definition > E47 - > - Spatial Coordinates > E48 - > - Place Name > E49 - > Time Appellation > E50 - > - Date > E75 - > Conceptual Object Appellation > E82 - > Actor Appellation > E51 - > Contact Point > E45 - > - Address > E35 - > Title > > Do we really want to delete all but E35 Title, E45 Address and E47 Spatial > Coordinates? > > Best > Christian-Emil > > From: Crm-sig on behalf of martin > > Sent: 02 August 2016 19:28 > To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] E82 Actor Appellation Issue > > I also vote for complete removal, together with all others except for Title, > address and coordinates > > On 2/8/2016 11:30 πμ, Stephen Stead wrote: >> The scope note and examples of E82 Actor Appellation do not clearly convey >> the idea that the appellation must be of a form that is characteristically >> an appellation of an actor. This is causing confusion in the user community. >> One alternative is to retire E82 altogether and the other is to update th
Re: [Crm-sig] P62 Homework
Thank you Christian-Emile for your comment and explanation. If you are right, then the scope note of E73 must be amended: "This class comprises identifiable immaterial items, such as a poems, jokes, data sets, images, texts, multimedia objects, procedural prescriptions, computer program code, algorithm or mathematical formulae, that have an objectively recognizable structure and are documented as single units. [. . .] Examples: - image BM38850.JPG from the Clayton Herbarium in London [. . .]” (quoted from page 28, cidoc_crm_version_6.0-2.doc) I understood that this BM38850.JPG is a file, otherwise what is it? In my opinion - but I may be wrong - your punched tape, or cards, or my hard disk, are instances of E84 Information Carrier; the file is what is written on them: E84 Information Carrier “This 20-km-long C-E Ore’s punched tape” P128 carries E73 Information Object “photo12345.jpg, a pretty and rare picture of Franco Niccolucci in shorts”. Another example: given its rarity, I now expect to receive messages from all the SIG members stating “Please send me by email the file of your photo in shorts”. I do not think they will mean to receive the punched tape, a bit too heavy to attach to an email; rather (its content as) an immaterial file attachment. The confusion may arise from the linguistic (ab)use of the term “file”, which is, according to my Oxford dictionary: 1) a folder or box for holding loose papers that are typically arranged in a particular order for easy reference 2) the contents of a file folder or box 3) a collection of data, programs, etc., stored in a computer's memory or on a storage device under a single identifying name 1) and 2) are likely to be E22 Man-Made Object and, since we keep it in order (well, not always in good order) for the information it contains, E84 Information Carrier 3) is more likely to be an E73 This is confusing in English: in Italian (and Dutch) a “file” is only a computer file, with other words for 1)-2); in German, precise as usual, a computer file is a “Datei”, otherwise it is an “Ordner"; anglophobic Spanish and French have adopted old terms to new technology; etc. Maybe people’s thinking is influenced by their native language usage, and in all these languages “file” sounds only as immaterial computer stuff, data and the like. Best, Franco PS pretty selfie of myself in shorts really available on request for free, regardless of its nature as E73 or E84 :-) Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 23 lug 2016, alle ore 08:41, Christian-Emil Smith Ore > ha scritto: > > Hi > A file is nota E73 information object. It is a physical object. You may store > your portrait of Martin on a punch tape (of a considerable length) or a stack > of punch cards for that matter. In principle there is no difference between > an object with a magnetic emulsion and a punch tape with respect to carrying > information. > > Yu ma also go back to the polyphone (http://www.hlxx.de/hp/polyphon.htm) > which indeed by many have been considered to be a heap of scrap metal and > pieces of wood. Still it is able to store information. > > Best > Christian-Emil > >> -Original Message- >> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Franco >> Niccolucci >> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:55 PM >> To: ste...@paveprime.com >> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P62 Homework >> >> I recently reviewed a (bad) paper on multimedia which revamped my >> interest on the topic. Let me tell you my doubts- >> >> P62 concerns an E24 Physical Man-Made Things, together with P65 shows >> visual item, although the latter is well known to have a slightly different >> meaning. E.g.: a caricature on paper, Mona Lisa, a coin with Queen >> Elizabeth’s >> profile, a postcard of Crete, the photo of Martin Doerr when he was 6 years >> old (yes, Martin has been a child, but long time ago): they are all allowed >> to >> P62 depict. So far, so good. >> >> If today I take a digital photo of Martin Doerr, e.g. with my iphone, what I >> produce is an E73 Information Object, stored somewhere in the iphone, in >> the memory of my Mac where I copy it, in the iCloud where I regularly back >> up the iphone content etc. This E73 exists as long as at least one of these >> physical carriers (E84 Information Carrier) stores it. E84 is an E22 Man-Made >> Object, a subclass of E24, so it is an E24 as well. As such, it is allowed >> to P62 >> depict. >> >> Going up the E73 class genealogy, (E73 subclass of E89 subclass of E28) one >> arrives at E28 Symbolic Object, so the fi
Re: [Crm-sig] P62 Homework
I recently reviewed a (bad) paper on multimedia which revamped my interest on the topic. Let me tell you my doubts- P62 concerns an E24 Physical Man-Made Things, together with P65 shows visual item, although the latter is well known to have a slightly different meaning. E.g.: a caricature on paper, Mona Lisa, a coin with Queen Elizabeth’s profile, a postcard of Crete, the photo of Martin Doerr when he was 6 years old (yes, Martin has been a child, but long time ago): they are all allowed to P62 depict. So far, so good. If today I take a digital photo of Martin Doerr, e.g. with my iphone, what I produce is an E73 Information Object, stored somewhere in the iphone, in the memory of my Mac where I copy it, in the iCloud where I regularly back up the iphone content etc. This E73 exists as long as at least one of these physical carriers (E84 Information Carrier) stores it. E84 is an E22 Man-Made Object, a subclass of E24, so it is an E24 as well. As such, it is allowed to P62 depict. Going up the E73 class genealogy, (E73 subclass of E89 subclass of E28) one arrives at E28 Symbolic Object, so the file produced on my iphone is an E28, which is the sister of E24, and both are distinct siblings of E71 Man-Made Thing. Being immaterial, E73 is NOT allowed to depict. In conclusion: if now I take a photo of Martin with a film, the film (and any printout out of it) P62 depicts Martin. But if I take the same photo with my iphone, what depicts Martin? Not the corresponding jpeg file E73 in the iphone (or any copy of it), because E73 does not belong to the domain of P62. Possibly the iphone memory where the file is stored, which as physical thing inherits the P62 domain from E24, but it sounds a bit weird to say “Franco’s iphone memory card depicts Martin Doerr". Any solution to this asymmetry? Note that both things, the film and the file, are related to the same visual item “image of Martin Doerr on 22/07/2016”: but the film is allowed to P65 show it, the file is not. Why not defining the domain of P62 as E71 Man-Made Thing, to incorporate both material items, coinciding with their carrier, and immaterial items, stored on a separate carrier? when we look at a painting, do we look at the assemblage of canvas, pigments, etc or we look at the E36 Visual Item P65 shown on it? They seem to be inseparable, but as digital technology shows, possibly they are not. This may lead to the question: what about icloud, is it a physical thing or what? It is of course made of physical disks, flash memories, cables etc, but without the appropriate software all this is just a heap of scrap iron that can’t store anything. But let us keep this question for another thread. Thanks in advance for any comment on the above concerns, they keep me awake in the nights of this hot July. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 22 lug 2016, alle ore 15:41, Stephen Stead > ha scritto: > > Revision of Scope note: > > BEFORE:- > P62 depicts (is depicted by) > > Domain: E24 Physical Man-Made Thing > Range: E1 CRM Entity > Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) > > Scope note:This property identifies something that is depicted by an > instance of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing. Depicting is meant in the sense that > the surface of the E24 Physical Man-Made Thing shows, through its passive > optical qualities or form, a representation of the entity depicted. It does > not pertain to inscriptions or any other information encoding. > > This property is a shortcut of the more fully developed path from E24 > Physical Man-Made Thing through P65 shows visual item (is shown by), E36 > Visual Item, P138 represents (has representation) to E1CRM Entity. P62.1 mode > of depiction allows the nature of the depiction to be refined. > Examples: > § The painting “La Liberté guidant le peuple” by Eugène Delacroix (E84) > depicts the French “July Revolution” of 1830 (E7) > § the 20 pence coin held by the Department of Coins and Medals of the > British Museum under registration number 2006,1101.126 (E24) depicts Queen > Elizabeth II (E21) mode of depiction Profile (E55) > > In First Order Logic: >P62(x,y) ⊃ E24(x) >P62(x,y) ⊃ E1(y) >P62(x,y,z) ⊃ [P62(x,y) ∧ E55(z)] > > Properties: P62.1 mode of depiction: E55 Type > > AFTER:- > > P62 depicts (is depicted by) > > Domain: E24 Physical Man-Made Thing > Range: E1 CRM Entity > Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) > > Scope note:This property identifies something that is depic
Re: [Crm-sig] Cost action on archaeological practice
This page explains better who’s behind it, besides Isto Huvila http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/ca/CA15201?management There are some (few) well known ones mentioned there. If you don’t know Isto, here is his CV and publication list: http://www.istohuvila.se/about-me In my opinion, this is somehow related to Nedimah and Tadimah and the like… b Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 17 apr 2016, alle ore 21:56, Øyvind Eide ha > scritto: > > Dear all, > > I see there is a new cost action on “Archaeological practices and knowledge > work in the digital environment.” > > http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/ca/CA15201 > > Does anybody know how (if?) they relate to cultural heritage information as > we know it? I looked at the memorandum of understanding but found nothing > about ICOM or CIDOC — it seemed to be more geared towards archaeological > practice perhaps? > > Kind regards, > > Øyvind > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] math background to fuzzy time intervals
we collected some math background of fuzzy time intervals in a chapter of Barcelo’s book on Mathematics in Archaeology, titled "Time, Chronology and Classification”. It contains a short introduction to fuzzy set theory, some archaeological background and a (non-exhaustive) list of references. The term “fuzzy” has a precise math definition so using it loosely in the CRM may require at least a note in the introduction; perhaps some parts of this paper may be useful for that. If you are interested in this paper, just let me know and I will send you a copy, also with other references not quoted in the paper. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy
Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage
Dear Martin & Christian-Emile > Il giorno 20 feb 2016, alle ore 18:49, martin ha > scritto: > > Dear Franco, > > This rises two important methodological questions (also supporting > Christian-Emils response) : > > On 19/2/2016 3:50 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote: >> The correct definition mentioned by Christian-Emile refers to what I would >> call “stand-alone” intangible heritage. >> >> But, there is always an intangible component in tangible heritage, for >> example what turns a stone into heritage. > In the CRM, as a principle, we reject this inversion of agency or causality, > which is common in the scholarly discourse: The stone does nothing, it does > not change. Therefore it cannot turn into heritage. I never said that. I said (it is written above): “what turns a stone into heritage”. The stone is the grammatical object, i.e. the entity that is acted upon by the subject (here “what”). If you prefer, the same sentence may be stated: “a stone is turned into heritage by its intangible heritage component”. > Only people can start regarding it as heritage. People regarding it as > heritage will be supported by evidence about how people treat the stone or > refer to the stone. When the stone becomes (passively) heritage, there must > be human activities which are the cause, including human products such as > texts, paintings etc. A painting (for example representing rites performed on that stone) cannot do anything, it is a painting. Instead, it is somebody’s interpretation of the painting and identification of the two stones, the material one and the depicted one (sort of mental de-referencing), that identifies, or perhaps defines, the intangible component of the material stone. Even a quotation in an ancient text “Franco’s stone was sacred to the religion of the Francos” does not suffice, as again you must identify the two stones, the one quoted and the one you have in your hand. > All this can be quite well documented in the CRM. If the stone were the > cause, different cultures couldn't have different perceptions about the > stone. So, I am not sure what else we would like to put into a formal > ontology? If we have evidence that the stone itself changes, we will model it. I never said the contrary. But I am not sure (probably my ignorance) that all the passages are correctly documented: 1. There is a stone (call it A) in the real world (probably an E18 Physical Thing) 2. There is a stone (call it B) mentioned in a source (a text, a painting). This is not a material stone, it is a conceptual one, 3. The two stones are "the same”, or, better, the conceptual stone B in the source may be associated to (identified with?) the physical one, A. 4. Somebody has made the above association. 5. This makes stone A an “interesting” thing. If any of the above passages is removed (because it is wrong, it is a fake, whatever) Stone A loses much if its interest. Below two serious and a hilarious examples. First example (real, courtesy Achille Felicetti). "It comes and goes" In the 1970s’ a famous linguistic professor, Lejeune, had an Hungarian student, Harmatta, also to become a famous scholar in linguistics, who told him about the discovery in a part of ancient Pannonia (now Hungary) of some Venetic inscriptions on a stone [our stone A], found in an excavation by Elisabeth Jerem, a well-reputed archaeologist whom most of you will know and who did not report about the “inscriptions". That language until then was believed to be spoken only in Veneto by the Veneti. Based on images of the inscriptions that the student brought to France, Harmatta graduated and published academic studies. Lejeune also published further work endorsing his student's paper, and a whole corpus was built about the Veneti of Pannonia. [My comment: this turned the “engraved” stone into heritage, and the stone entered the Pecs museum holdings] In the early 1990's two Italian professors, Prosdocimi and Marinetti, went to Hungary to see first hand the artifacts. Once at the museum of Pecs, they looked at all the material cited in Harmatta's paper, and there were no inscriptions! What had believed to be an inscription were simply natural scratches on the stone!! It then resulted that Lejeune had never seen the stone, only poor images of it. This finding was then indipendently confirmed by Austrian scholars, and is now universally accepted. (See: A.L. Prosdocimi, Sulle inesistenti iscrizioni venetiche di Pannonia, in "Rivista di Epigrafia Italica", sezione di "Studi Etruschi" 58, 1992, pp.315-316). Thus stone A is “turned" by the first (Harmatta’s) “discovery” into heritage, the witness of Venetic presence in modern Hungary, and documented as such: E24 Physical Man-made Thing P128 carries E34 Inscription P2 has type E55 Type “Venetic”. But
Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage
The correct definition mentioned by Christian-Emile refers to what I would call “stand-alone” intangible heritage. But, there is always an intangible component in tangible heritage, for example what turns a stone into heritage. This is hard to document together with the artifacts. One may have the (perhaps wrong) impression that the CRM focuses on the tangible details rather than on the equally important intangible ones. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 19 feb 2016, alle ore 14:29, Christian-Emil Smith Ore > ha scritto: > > Intangible cultural heritage has partly become a buzz-word. However, the term > is ok. Documentation of intangible cultural heritage has indeed very long > traditions. This is what scholars in field linguistics, philology, > onomasiology etnogragraphy/etnology, social anthropologists etc etc have > been doing for centuries. It is nothing new here. On should remember that an > ontology is used to describe the way we can conceptualise our understanding > of the "intangible" in order to document it. > > The UNESCO declaration is also quite clear, see below. In the CRM universe > FRBRoo is the most suitable ontology. Patrick Le Boeuf has given several > presentations on this. > > Chr-Emil > > 1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, > expressions, > knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and > cultural spaces associated > therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals > recognize as part of their > cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from > generation to generation, > is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their > environment, their > interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of > identity and > continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human > creativity. For the > purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such > intangible cultural > heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights > instruments, as well as with > the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, > and of > sustainable development. > > 2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is > manifested inter > alia in the following domains: > (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the > intangible > cultural heritage; > (b) performing arts; > (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; > (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; > (e) traditional craftsmanship. > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin >> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:59 PM >> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage >> >> Dear Phil, >> >> "Intangible heritage" is a bit a buzzword. I suggest to identify different >> senses: >> >> A) A particular activity, in particular performances. FRBRoo contains a model >> for that, but that can be refined. My colleague George Bruseker has worked >> on ome issues, may be other crm-sig members have. >> >> B) A type of activity characteristic for a community, culture. Could be >> technical know how, ceremonies etc. >> This requires a pattern model as in ecology, which "rises" CRM properties to >> a "typically..." metalevel. We have examples from biodiversity, may be other >> crm-sig members have such models. >> Each pattern is supported by evidence by individual events. >> >> C) An oral tradition. These are Information Objects, the carriers being >> people. >> A slight modification of FRBRoo could cover the details. >> >> Comments? >> >> Best, >> >> Martin >> >> On 19/2/2016 12:43 μμ, Carlisle, Philip wrote: >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I’m resending this as it didn’t appear to get through. >> >> >> >> >> >> As you may know the Arches Project has been using the CRM as the >> backbone for a cultural heritage inventory system. This is working well and >> is >> being implemented by many projects. >> >> >> >> One such project now wants to use Arches to record intangible >> heritage and so needs to create resource graphs, based on an ontology, in >>
Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage
Hi Philip we at PIN have been working on intangible matters, so far dealing with single specific topics but with no overall approach, which is in our plans but not yet developed. We would be very much interested in addressing such issues. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing similar around. Are you attending the SIG next week? Otherwise we can continue this conversation remotely. Best Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 19 feb 2016, alle ore 11:43, Carlisle, Philip > ha scritto: > > Hi all, > I’m resending this as it didn’t appear to get through. > > > As you may know the Arches Project has been using the CRM as the backbone for > a cultural heritage inventory system. This is working well and is being > implemented by many projects. > > One such project now wants to use Arches to record intangible heritage and so > needs to create resource graphs, based on an ontology, in order to do this. > > Can the CRM be used to represent the intangible heritage? If not does anyone > know of an ontology that can? > > Phil > > Phil Carlisle > Data Standards Supervisor > Data Standards Unit, Listing Group > Historic England > The Engine House > Fire Fly Avenue > Swindon > SN2 2EH > Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824 > > http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ > http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ > > > > We are the public body that looks after England's historic environment. We > champion historic places, helping people to understand, value and care for > them, now and for the future. > Sign up to our enewsletter to keep up to date with our latest news, advice > and listings. > > > HistoricEngland.org.uk >Twitter: @HistoricEngland > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal > views which are not the views of Historic England unless specifically stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and > notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information > in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic > England may become publicly available. > > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] VOTE for the name of E78 Collection
Dear Martin, very clear, thanks. Just a bit nineteen-century-ish: what about digital libraries and digital curation, which does not concern curating the servers (or the Cloud) on which their instances of E28 reside? It seems that they are beyond the (current) scope of the CRM, what sounds a bit paradoxical, but nevertheless perfectly logical. Best Franco, the Jiminy Cricket Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 06 feb 2016, alle ore 20:13, martin ha > scritto: > > Dear Franco, > > As an explanation what has been discussed in the meeting: > Librarians talk about "holdings" wrt to library contents. > It means the physical copies. Therefore they are physical. So, there is a > good practice of the term there, > which actually motivated the proposal. > > The argument why we have modelled collections as physical things, regardless > the intentional content: > The video games, in order to be in a collection, must be represented by > physical copies. > If we would disregard the physical nature of the copy, we could not talk > about location and destruction. > This is also the sense how libraries distinguish holdings from content. > > Would that make sense? > > All the best, > > Martin > > On 6/2/2016 5:38 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote: >> Not a vote, but an amateur comment. >> >> -> Collection vs Curated Holdings >> Of course. There are “collections" of things which are not curated, just an >> assemblage of stuff. Like some old objects I have which I call my collection >> of old computational instruments, but according to the qualified opinion of >> my wife is just a dust attractor. >> >> But, what about a collection (oops, curated holdings) of videogames like the >> one of the National Videogame Museum of Frisco, TX, USA >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videogame_History_Museum)? It seems that what >> they collect (oops, “curate and hold”) forms a collection of E28 Conceptual >> Object rather than E18 Physical Thing. >> >> Possibly defining E78 as a curated assemblage of instances of E72 Legal >> Object or, maybe even better, of E70 Thing (in some cases rights may be >> difficult to ascertain as in the examples below), would reconcile the CRM >> with the curators of the Frisco museum; and also simplify life to the >> curators of the Museo Officina Profumo from the Old Pharmacy of Santa Maria >> Novella in Florence, which I hope you will be able to visit when you come >> here for the next CRM meeting, as well as to their colleagues of the Musèe >> International du Perfum of Grasse, France. Is fragrance a Physical Thing? >> What about the exhibitions for visually impaired people consisting in a >> garden where they smell the scent of different flowers along the visit? >> >> -> Holding vs holdings >> My knowledge of English is even more superficial than my knowledge of the >> CRM, so my opinion is not so qualified. It seems to me that “holdings” is >> used here in the plural as a collective noun, and not as the result of >> putting together one individual “holding" with another one and another one >> and so on, as a genuine plural; it is unfortunately written in the plural, >> what makes pluralizing it a bit awkward if one wants to keep the “holdings" >> distinct from each other, as Werner has pointed out. Not only: it makes >> difficult to express indefiniteness as when using the indefinite article “a” >> to indicate “one of a series", like in the second sentence of this email >> where I was in trouble being unable to call it “a curated holdings” as “a” >> cannot go with “holdings”. So what would be the correct way of expressing >> the equivalent of “a collection” i.e. one instance whatever of the class >> “curated holdings”? Wouldn't the sentence "Is_A curated_holdings” describing >> a future subclass of E78 sound strange? >> >> Finally, holdings is a synonym of property, according to my Oxford >> dictionary, which is not the case if the objects forming the collection >> (oops, holdings) are just deposited, on lean, or illegally/controversially >> detained. There are famous examples of the latter. >> >> So I would prefer “curated set” or better “curated assemblage”, being “set" >> a very generic term not incorporating the concept of intentionality. >> >> Anyway, this concern about a name is not so important: that which we call a >> rose, by any other name would smell as sweet. More important is, in my >
Re: [Crm-sig] VOTE for the name of E78 Collection
Not a vote, but an amateur comment. -> Collection vs Curated Holdings Of course. There are “collections" of things which are not curated, just an assemblage of stuff. Like some old objects I have which I call my collection of old computational instruments, but according to the qualified opinion of my wife is just a dust attractor. But, what about a collection (oops, curated holdings) of videogames like the one of the National Videogame Museum of Frisco, TX, USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videogame_History_Museum)? It seems that what they collect (oops, “curate and hold”) forms a collection of E28 Conceptual Object rather than E18 Physical Thing. Possibly defining E78 as a curated assemblage of instances of E72 Legal Object or, maybe even better, of E70 Thing (in some cases rights may be difficult to ascertain as in the examples below), would reconcile the CRM with the curators of the Frisco museum; and also simplify life to the curators of the Museo Officina Profumo from the Old Pharmacy of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, which I hope you will be able to visit when you come here for the next CRM meeting, as well as to their colleagues of the Musèe International du Perfum of Grasse, France. Is fragrance a Physical Thing? What about the exhibitions for visually impaired people consisting in a garden where they smell the scent of different flowers along the visit? -> Holding vs holdings My knowledge of English is even more superficial than my knowledge of the CRM, so my opinion is not so qualified. It seems to me that “holdings” is used here in the plural as a collective noun, and not as the result of putting together one individual “holding" with another one and another one and so on, as a genuine plural; it is unfortunately written in the plural, what makes pluralizing it a bit awkward if one wants to keep the “holdings" distinct from each other, as Werner has pointed out. Not only: it makes difficult to express indefiniteness as when using the indefinite article “a” to indicate “one of a series", like in the second sentence of this email where I was in trouble being unable to call it “a curated holdings” as “a” cannot go with “holdings”. So what would be the correct way of expressing the equivalent of “a collection” i.e. one instance whatever of the class “curated holdings”? Wouldn't the sentence "Is_A curated_holdings” describing a future subclass of E78 sound strange? Finally, holdings is a synonym of property, according to my Oxford dictionary, which is not the case if the objects forming the collection (oops, holdings) are just deposited, on lean, or illegally/controversially detained. There are famous examples of the latter. So I would prefer “curated set” or better “curated assemblage”, being “set" a very generic term not incorporating the concept of intentionality. Anyway, this concern about a name is not so important: that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet. More important is, in my opinion, the issue concerning E18 vs E28 => E72/E70 to characterize the components of E78, as noted above. Looking forward to meet you here, Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 05 feb 2016, alle ore 12:19, Chryssoula Bekiari > ha scritto: > > Dear All > > In the last meeting, the crm-sig meeting decided to vote for the name of E78 > Collection (issue 270). The proposal is to rename the E78 Collection to E78 > Curated Holdings > > Please vote > > 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/people/people_individual.jsp?Person_ID=13 > - > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49
Dear Martin, all I totally agree with the below. In the end, it is a matter of identity criteria, which are perhaps beyond the scope of the CRM. This opens another interesting issue, also possibly beyond the scope of the CRM but in my opinion not at all irrelevant for sharing data: how do I know that what you call a Ferrari (e.g. a vehicle) is the same as what I call a Ferrari (e.g. a collectible)? Perhaps referring to a thesaurus. If so, the use of thesaurus X, e.g. the (imaginary) one by the Automotive Constructors Guild, rather than Y, e.g. Getty's AAT, should be explicitly documented, with the data and not in the attached documentation. This might ‘absorb’ the issue of characterizing the essential parts that must be present to consider the object still existing, and in the custody of someone. Franco Prof Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 09/ott/2015, alle ore 19:47, martin ha > scritto: > > Dear Franco, > > I agree - it was not my intention that P49 would be the place to define > identity concepts. I may have been > misunderstood in that matter. P49 and E10 are the only? places in the CRM > where "physical possession" appears. > I just wanted to describe, that Physical Things have different concepts of > identity. It is task of each type of E18 to define its own identity > conditions. So, the Ferrari as a functional instrument in traffic has > identity conditions, and the Ferrari that got a museum exhibit it has other > ones (it may loose te chassis number), and the transition is fuzzy, as > always. Therefore we describe this by a transformation event - change of > identity under preservation of some structured matter - or - the set of > things described in the object record in the museum have been parts of > theFerrari when admitted for traffic. See. e.g., what Enola Gay became when > it was turned into a museum exhibit. So, when talking about what part of the > matter/ molecules of the thing I should have under control to make the > physical possession of a thing unambiguous, I just wanted to say it should > not contradict to the way the type this thing belongs to requires > identification. If someone wants to instantiate P49 unambiguously, it is a > recommendation that he also defines the meaning of a representative part, > portion or segment for that thing. If he does not, the KB may end up with the > same object being at different places at the same time, not a pleasant > conclusion. This is a hint against a bad practice that may exist in some > museums having a small sherd and documenting it as if it were the whole > original. > > Would you agree on that? > > Cheers, > > Martin > > On 6/10/2015 5:49 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote: >> Dear Martin, >> >> I slightly disagree. You cannot put the burden of the identity criteria of >> the E18 on P49, which simply associates the E18 to its custodian. Of course, >> if E18 ceases to exist (as such), there is no issue and nothing to keep in >> custody. >> >> The matter of the identity criteria is slippery. Simon’s Ferrari would exist >> and perhaps (P49) have a custodian, according to the law as regards civil >> responsibility, in this case identity relates to the permanence of the >> chassis number; as a collectible, the identity criteria might be totally >> different, probably requiring requiring original pieces. >> Theseus’ ship identity depends on the regulations of the Ship Registry of >> Athens in the 3rd century BC, or whenever it was. >> Cutlery - which is **possibly** an E78 collection - is again different. >> Think of a set of glasses that are more subject to changes compared with >> metal spoons and forks: you start with 12, then they break, one tonight, >> another one tomorrow, and so on. For how long would you consider them a set >> and not just spare glasses? >> So, don’t ask poor P49 to help, it is an overwhelming task for it. >> >> Franco >> >> >> Prof Franco Niccolucci >> Director, VAST-LAB >> PIN - U. of Florence >> Scientific Coordinator >> ARIADNE - PARTHENOS >> >> Piazza Ciardi 25 >> 59100 Prato, Italy >> >> >> >> >> >>> Il giorno 05/ott/2015, alle ore 19:47, martin ha >>> scritto: >>> >>> Dear Simon, >>> >>> Your argument well taken, I hope I have not been misunderstood: In the case >>> of the 12 spoons, forks, and knives, one may argue that as long as the >>> majority of parts is in the hands of the curator, he has keept it, even i
Re: [Crm-sig] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49
Dear Martin, I slightly disagree. You cannot put the burden of the identity criteria of the E18 on P49, which simply associates the E18 to its custodian. Of course, if E18 ceases to exist (as such), there is no issue and nothing to keep in custody. The matter of the identity criteria is slippery. Simon’s Ferrari would exist and perhaps (P49) have a custodian, according to the law as regards civil responsibility, in this case identity relates to the permanence of the chassis number; as a collectible, the identity criteria might be totally different, probably requiring requiring original pieces. Theseus’ ship identity depends on the regulations of the Ship Registry of Athens in the 3rd century BC, or whenever it was. Cutlery - which is **possibly** an E78 collection - is again different. Think of a set of glasses that are more subject to changes compared with metal spoons and forks: you start with 12, then they break, one tonight, another one tomorrow, and so on. For how long would you consider them a set and not just spare glasses? So, don’t ask poor P49 to help, it is an overwhelming task for it. Franco Prof Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 05/ott/2015, alle ore 19:47, martin ha > scritto: > > Dear Simon, > > Your argument well taken, I hope I have not been misunderstood: In the case > of the 12 spoons, forks, and knives, one may argue that as long as the > majority of parts is in the hands of the curator, he has keept it, even if > every piece has temporarily left his hands. This is different from marking > the chassis. One could even allow for all parts being exchanged, if the > object's identity is defined respectively. I'd regard these as different ways > to define a representative part. I believe they are all acceptable, as long > as they do not come in conflict with the natural concept of identity of the > object, and do not cause ambiguity about who has the object and who the > parts. With the cutlery, indeed someone could be regarded keeper of the > whole, and all parts dissapearing into different hands, leaving the keeper of > the whole with nothing in his hands. I think this should be avoided. Does > that make > sense? > > Cheers, > > Martin > > On 5/10/2015 7:07 μμ, Simon Spero wrote: >> I would argue that the extreme case is not the set of cutlery, but the Ship >> of Theseus- or more practically, the Car of Enzo. >> >> For models such as the 250 GTO, it is very much the provenance in >> association with the chassis number that determine the identity over time. >> >> If a vehicle is crashed, then restored without a transfer of custody, any >> application of the new scope note may be post hoc. >> >> Simon >> >> On Oct 5, 2015 10:13 AM, "martin" wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Issue: >> P49: >> >> This shortcut supposes the existence of at least one representative part >> standing physically for the whole. Discuss knowledge revision process if a >> piece taken to be the representative of the whole must be regarded piece of >> another. Things kept may have parts in other hands. >> >> A comment should be stated. Steve, MD, Athinak should think together >> >> >> I propose the scope note addition: >> >> Scope note: This property identifies the E39 Actor or Actors who have >> or have had custody of an instance of E18 Physical Thing at some time. This >> property leaves open the question if parts of this physical thing have been >> added or removed during the time-spans it has been under the custody of this >> actor, but it is required that at least a part which can unambiguously be >> identified as representing the whole has been under this custody for its >> whole time. For instance, in the extreme case of a set of cutlery we may >> require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of the actor. >> >> >> Best, >> Martin >> >> -- >> >> -- >> 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
Re: [Crm-sig] Participation to forthcoming meeting
Dear Chryssoula and others it seems that I will unfortunately miss also this SIG meeting. Instead, Paola and Achille are coming and will report on some interesting thoughts come up at the Poznan TPDL workshop on the CRM. They are now looking for flights and may arrive at some time on Tuesday, depending on connections and seat availability. Thus they may miss the 1st day of the SIG meeting, Tuesday 6th. There is one small thing coming up during the Poznan discussion which might concern the discussion on Tuesday, according to the agenda, so I summarize it below. E92 Space-time volume is the domain of the two properties P160 has temporal projection, and P161 has spatial projection. However these two properties link E92 respectively to an E52 Time-span and to a E53 Place; these are the *overall* projection of the E92, i.e. throughout any place (P160) and any time (P161). Additionally, there exists P164 is restricted by, which generates a new Space-time volume, actually a subclass E93, restricted to a specific Time-span. It may be useful to restrict these projections at a specific place (for P160) and at a specific time (for P161). So one could consider the utility of defining P160.1 at E53 Place. It characterizes the temporal projection (a Time-span) of E92 at a specific Place P161.1 at E52 Time-span. It characterizes the spatial projection (a Place) of E92 at (during) a given Time-Span. Actually the same effect of P161.1 may obtained this way: E92 Space-time Volume: P164 is restricted by; E52 Time-span: P161 has spatial projection: E53 Place. So P161.1 is a sort of shortcut, but it complements nicely the proposed P160.1. Here is a an example: the space-time volume describing the 4D extent of Iron Age in Europe P160 -> Which was the time span of Iron Age (answer: from 11th century BC until circa 1100 AD) P160.1 -> Which was the time span of Iron Age in England? (answer: from 800 BC until 43 AD) P161 -> Where was Iron Age (answer: all Europe) P161.1 -> Where was Iron Age during the 1st century AD? (answer: the areas not yet conquered by the Romans at year 1 AD, approximately modern time UK, Germany, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe; part of these were conquered during the century) The Pleiades mapping paper, presented at Poznan, has full-fledged scope notes for the above. Best wishes Franco Prof Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 28/set/2015, alle ore 19:56, Chryssoula Bekiari > ha scritto: > > Dear All > > I would like to ask you about your participation to the forthcoming meeting > in Crete. > The provisional agenda of the meeting has been published on the site > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/special_interest_meetings.html > > best regards > > Chryssoula > > PS. > You may find also the new versions of CIDOC CRM, CRMarchaeo, CRMgeo in the > following links > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/official_release_cidoc.html > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/technical_papers.html > > -- > -- > 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/people/people_individual.jsp?Person_ID=13 > - > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
[Crm-sig] Conceptual Objects and their Appellations
Hi all, Among the examples of E28 Conceptual Objects there is (rightfully) Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy”. I would believe that “Ode to Joy” is the appellation of this object, as is also "“Ode an die Freude”” etc. However, the examples of E75 Conceptual Object Appellation (related to E28 by P149 is identified by) include as examples only identifiers, i.e. instances of E42 Identifier, which is a specific kind (actually a subclass) of E41 Appellation. The same happens, more or less, in the examples of P149. My question is: - is this deliberate, and only identifiers are allowed for E75, as in the examples - or, “Ode to Joy” would also be an acceptable instance of E75, as results from the scope note? I will assume the latter. If I am right, adding “Ode to Joy” as an example of E75, i.e. an appellation that is not an identifier, would clarify. By the way, and in general, I am not much comfortable with all the story of Identifiers/Appellations. For example, in the scope note of E44 Place Appellation the term “identifier” is loosely used to define the class instances, but this may be misleading as appellations like “next door on the left after Franco's house, just before the Indian Restaurant named Kashmir” are not at all an identifier, but indeed a valid place appellation. In Japan this one may reportedly be used also as E45 Address, again called an “identifier” in its scope note. An identifier is an appellation, but an appellation is not (always) an identifier. Perhaps more important, there is an activity of Identifier Assignment (E15) as subclass of Attribute Assignment (E13), but there is no similar class of Appellation Assignment, which would include giving names, addresses etc. So one has to go up one level and use E13, possibly with a type specification, to describe the activity of associating names with things, which is still more frequent than assigning a DOI. While Identifiers are indeed important because, among others, they may enable Linked Data, I don't really care of knowing how the identifier was assigned, so a shortcut property would probably suffice in most cases to link the thing to its identifier, preferred or not. On the other hand, I’d often like to know by whom/when/why a name (an appellation) was given to something, and the full path including the activity would allow documenting who did it (participated in the activity in the role of author), why (was motivated by), etc. It is unclear to me why Identifiers have the privilege of a specific assignment activity, while poor Appellations don’t. Thanks for the attention Franco Prof Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy
Re: [Crm-sig] [EMF-CRM2015] Deadline extended - Workshop: Extending, Mapping and Focusing the CRM - TPDL2015
Dear Jim, thanks for your interest in the CRM workshop at TPDL2015. However, I must clarify that it is *about* the CRM and not *by* the CRM (SIG). > Il giorno 21/lug/2015, alle ore 19:03, Jim Salmons > ha scritto: > > Paola and #cidocCRM SIG members, > > First, a quick update to note that I am now an “official card-carrying > member” of ICOM with participation in the CIDOC community! It took many > weeks, but my official membership card and welcome pack arrived yesterday. As > election results of my proposed membership into the #cidocCRM SIG. I will be > very pleased if I have the opportunity to say that I am a #cidocCRM SIG > member.) > > To this end, I have to admit to nearly drooling on my keyboard at Paola’s > note describing the upcoming #TPDL2015 workshop > (http://vast-lab.org/emf-crm2015/). While we don’t know yet which specific > presentations will be made, this will surely be a “watershed” opportunity to > gather and share good information about current and emerging > #cidocCRM-related projects. It would be a shame for this information to be > presented only to those in attendance at the workshop, then lost to the “back > burner” of expensive academic press access. No expensive academic press. All accepted papers will be published online on ceur-ws.org a few days before (or, perhaps, after) the workshop. Then, possibly, a revised version will be published on journals. > > Indeed, these presentations will likely be a showcase of “best practices” and > “lessons learned” that will be invaluable as new users and developers begin > working with the #cidocCRM. > > PROPOSAL: Can we arrange for this workshop to be webcast for remote “real > time attendance/conversation” as well as record this stream for re-purposing > as video resource material on the upcoming new cidoc-crm.org website? Sure, but we must check with the local organizers if this is acceptable/feasible. I am confident it will be acceptable, not so much it will be feasible. In any case we can record the workshop and broadcast it on youtube - I don’t know if it will get many likes :) > > For my part to help make this webcast/recording possible, I would be happy to > work with any “boots on the ground” folk who may be planning to attend the > workshop. I’d do whatever I can to assist in preparing for,promoting, and > delivering this proposed webcast/recording. (A Google Hangout on the Air, for > example, might be a good way to deliver the live stream while it > transparently records the sessions for YouTube-based post-workshop viewing.) Thanks, we’ll keep you posted. Best Franco Prof Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy
