Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 511

[Robert Sanderson]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 5:54 AM Martin Doerr  wrote:

> 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.
>

Understood, and agreed. The scope note for E16 is clear that is for
measuring "physical properties ... by ... direct observation of particular
states".

A word count would be an Attribute Assignment of the Dimension to the
Linguistic Object, potentially using a particular specific object as a
witness for the symbols. Of course, I can count symbols in my head, but
then I am not observing the symbols physically, and therefore it is not a
Measurement.

If I am not able to be at the SIG session where this is discussed, please
count this as my vote in favor of the resolution of the issue.

Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 511

[Дарья Юрьевна Гук]

It's always comparison with something, we fix difference.





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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 511

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Robert,

Yes, exactly.

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.

Best,

Martin

On 3/2/2021 11:52 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Martin wrote in particular:
  Reduce in CRMbase Mesaurement , P40 observed dimension, to E18 
Physical Thing. Add 3 different properties “has dimension” in CRMBase 
to E70 Thing, E53 Place, E4 Period (or E2 Temp Entity).


I agree with your argumentation, and believe that the changes in CRM 
Base would be:


P39 measured:
  Range changes from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing

PXX1_has_dimension
  Domain: E53 Place
  Range: E54 Dimension

PXX2_has_dimension
  Domain: E4 Period
  Range: E54 Dimension

to be cognate with P43 has dimension for E70s.

The question would remain about the measuring of Non-physical Things, 
such as the number of symbols in a E90 symbolic object... but I don't 
have that use case, so am happy to leave the discussion to someone 
that does :)


Rob

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:31 PM Martin Doerr > wrote:


**

*Posted by Robert Sanderson on 9/9/2020*

I believe that there is an inconsistency in the model for
measurements and dimensions.

E54 Dimensions are associated directly with E70 Things using P43
has dimension.  So not every class can have dimensions, only those
that are descendents of E70.

However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1
CRM Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot
have a dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This
seems inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can
still be measured.

I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing
to resolve this inconsistency.

We have to distinguish measurement from dimension. In order to
measure something in a narrower sense, I need an observation of
something material. Dimensions can also be result of computation,
evaluation and estimation (forms of Attribute Assignment).

If we look at measuring in the narrower sense, we can count the
characters of a text on paper, but not the abstract text. The
logical representation of a text can be evaluated for its dimensions.

We cannot measure a place, but features at a place. See also Issue
388. But clearly, we can measure duration and extent of processes,
and comparing a clock, which provides a duration from the last
sync event, with some other transient situation or microevent, in
order to calculate absolute time.

So, we may assign the ability to be observed to E18 physical
things and E4 Period, or more narrowly to E5 Event.The ability to
be observed appears to need some common ontological nature, a
certain materiality interacting with measurable signals. Even the
lightning creates a plasma hose lasting some milliseconds. That
would need a new class “Observable Entity” as range.

Otherwise, we may regard measuring physical things and measuring
processes *as independent*. Then, we would need *another
measurement class*, such as “static measurement” versus “dynamic
measurement”.

Dimensions of other things, such as places in the abstract
geometric sense of the CRM, need not be based on a common
property. The place can only have diameters and areas as
dimentions, and may be some more exotic ones. The dimension in the
phenomenal timespan is of course that of the respective period
etc. So, my argument being that E53 Place, E52 Time-Span have
their own properties with range Dimension, without being regarded
as observable (rather results of observation).

I’d propose the following:

Reduce in CRMbase Mesaurement , P40 observed dimension, to E18
Physical Thing. Add 3 different properties “has dimension” in
CRMBase to E70 Thing, E53 Place, E4 Period (or E2 Temp Entity).

Extent CRMSci by E18, E4 IsA Observable Entity, and extend
Mesaurement P40 observed dimension,from E18 to Observable Entity.

Alternatively, introduce “Dynamic Measurement”in CRMSci.

Best,

Martin



--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University



--

 Dr. Martin Doerr
  
 Honorary Head of the

 Center for Cultural Informatics
 
 Information Systems Laboratory

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

 GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
 
 Vox:+30(2810)391625

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

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 511

[Robert Sanderson]

Martin wrote in particular:
  Reduce in CRMbase Mesaurement , P40 observed dimension, to E18 Physical
Thing. Add 3 different properties “has dimension” in CRMBase to E70 Thing,
E53 Place, E4 Period (or E2 Temp Entity).

I agree with your argumentation, and believe that the changes in CRM Base
would be:

P39 measured:
  Range changes from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing

PXX1_has_dimension
  Domain: E53 Place
  Range: E54 Dimension

PXX2_has_dimension
  Domain: E4 Period
  Range: E54 Dimension

to be cognate with P43 has dimension for E70s.

The question would remain about the measuring of Non-physical Things, such
as the number of symbols in a E90 symbolic object... but I don't have that
use case, so am happy to leave the discussion to someone that does :)

Rob

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:31 PM Martin Doerr  wrote:

>
>
> *Posted by Robert Sanderson on 9/9/2020*
>
> I believe that there is an inconsistency in the model for measurements and
> dimensions.
>
> E54 Dimensions are associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has
> dimension.  So not every class can have dimensions, only those that are
> descendents of E70.
>
> However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM
> Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a
> dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems inconsistent
> that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be measured.
>
> I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to
> resolve this inconsistency.
>
>
>
> We have to distinguish measurement from dimension. In order to measure
> something in a narrower sense, I need an observation of something material.
> Dimensions can also be result of computation, evaluation and estimation
> (forms of Attribute Assignment).
>
> If we look at measuring in the narrower sense, we can count the characters
> of a text on paper, but not the abstract text. The logical representation
> of a text can be evaluated for its dimensions.
>
> We cannot measure a place, but features at a place. See also Issue 388.
> But clearly, we can measure duration and extent of processes, and comparing
> a clock, which provides a duration from the last sync event, with some
> other transient situation or microevent, in order to calculate absolute
> time.
>
> So, we may assign the ability to be observed to E18 physical things and E4
> Period, or more narrowly to E5 Event.  The ability to be observed appears
> to need some common ontological nature, a certain materiality interacting
> with measurable signals. Even the lightning creates a plasma hose lasting
> some milliseconds. That would need a new class “Observable Entity” as range.
>
> Otherwise, we may regard measuring physical things and measuring processes *as
> independent*. Then, we would need *another measurement class*, such as
> “static measurement” versus “dynamic measurement”.
>
> Dimensions of other things, such as places in the abstract geometric sense
> of the CRM, need not be based on a common property. The place can only have
> diameters and areas as dimentions, and may be some more exotic ones. The
> dimension in the phenomenal timespan is of course that of the respective
> period etc. So, my argument being that E53 Place, E52 Time-Span have their
> own properties with range Dimension, without being regarded as observable
> (rather results of observation).
>
> I’d propose the following:
>
> Reduce in CRMbase Mesaurement , P40 observed dimension, to E18 Physical
> Thing. Add 3 different properties “has dimension” in CRMBase to E70 Thing,
> E53 Place, E4 Period (or E2 Temp Entity).
>
> Extent CRMSci by E18, E4 IsA Observable Entity, and extend Mesaurement P40
> observed dimension,  from E18 to Observable Entity.
>
> Alternatively, introduce “Dynamic Measurement”  in CRMSci.
> Best,
>
> Martin
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Issue 511

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

Let me take up this issue, after new considerations:

Background:

**

*Posted by Robert Sanderson on 9/9/2020*

Dear all,

I believe that there is an inconsistency in the model for measurements 
and dimensions.


E54 Dimensions are associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has 
dimension.  So not every class can have dimensions, only those that are 
descendents of E70.


However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM 
Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a 
dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems 
inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be 
measured.


I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to 
resolve this inconsistency.


I would also be okay with the other direction by changing the domain of 
P43 has dimension to be E1 CRM Entity, however that seems like a much 
more significant change, and would result in quite strange side effects 
such as Dimensions having Dimensions.


……

*Posted by Robert on 9/9/2020*

Thanks Thanasis.  Yes, there's various dimensions that are associated 
with non-Things, and I agree that Place is particularly easy to justify.


Place:  Area. The county of Los Angeles has a dimension of 4751 square 
miles. If the place is approximate, then the radius of a centroid would 
be an obvious dimension to record, or height/width for bounding box 
defined Places.


Time-Span:  Duration is already a property of a Time-Span that refers to 
a dimension (P191). This could then be a subproperty of P43, or 
deprecated in favor of a classification on the Dimension.


Temporal Entity and Spacetime Volume are a bit strange in relation to 
Time-Span. Does the Period have the duration or the Time-Span, or both? 
What if they're different


Conversely Dimensions seem like they should not have Dimensions.

We have to distinguish measurement from dimension. In order to measure 
something in a narrower sense, I need an observation of something 
material. Dimensions can also be result of computation, evaluation and 
estimation (forms of Attribute Assignment).


If we look at measuring in the narrower sense, we can count the 
characters of a text on paper, but not the abstract text. The logical 
representation of a text can be evaluated for its dimensions.


We cannot measure a place, but features at a place. See also Issue 388. 
But clearly, we can measure duration and extent of processes, and 
comparing a clock, which provides a duration from the last sync event, 
with some other transient situation or microevent, in order to calculate 
absolute time.


So, we may assign the ability to be observed to E18 physical things and 
E4 Period, or more narrowly to E5 Event.The ability to be observed 
appears to need some common ontological nature, a certain materiality 
interacting with measurable signals. Even the lightning creates a plasma 
hose lasting some milliseconds. That would need a new class “Observable 
Entity” as range.


Otherwise, we may regard measuring physical things and measuring 
processes *as independent*. Then, we would need *another measurement 
class*, such as “static measurement” versus “dynamic measurement”.


Dimensions of other things, such as places in the abstract geometric 
sense of the CRM, need not be based on a common property. The place can 
only have diameters and areas as dimentions, and may be some more exotic 
ones. The dimension in the phenomenal timespan is of course that of the 
respective period etc. So, my argument being that E53 Place, E52 
Time-Span have their own properties with range Dimension, without being 
regarded as observable (rather results of observation).


I’d propose the following:

Reduce in CRMbase Mesaurement , P40 observed dimension, to E18 Physical 
Thing. Add 3 different properties “has dimension” in CRMBase to E70 
Thing, E53 Place, E4 Period (or E2 Temp Entity).


Extent CRMSci by E18, E4 IsA Observable Entity, and extend Mesaurement 
P40 observed dimension,from E18 to Observable Entity.


Alternatively, introduce “Dynamic Measurement”in CRMSci.

Best,

Martin

--

 Dr. Martin Doerr
  
 Honorary Head of the

 Center for Cultural Informatics
 
 Information Systems Laboratory

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

 GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
 
 Vox:+30(2810)391625

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

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