Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance
On 11/05/2018 08:50, Martin Doerr wrote: > Dear Richard, > > Following the latest extensions of the scope note of E4 Period, a > geopolitical entity is indeed regarded as a case (type, > specialization) of E4 Period. Since E4 Period IsA E92 spacetime > volume, its projection at some time or at all times is an > E53 Place. See respective properties, they should covers all cases: > P161, E93, P164. > > So, multiple inheritance yes, but with E92, not E53. Martin, Thanks. I have now found the CRMgeo documentation, and I'm working my way through it ... Best wishes, Richard > > Best, > > Martin > > On 5/11/2018 12:47 AM, Richard Light wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm wanting to encourage a colleague to use a CRM-based approach to a >> geographical-themed project. We're talking about geopolitical [and >> geographical] entities which have a known duration (e.g. 'Abingdon >> from the 17th century until local government reorganisation in 1974'). >> >> This could be modelled as a subclass of E4 Period, which neatly binds >> together the place and time aspects we want to record. Conversely it >> could be modelled as a subclass of E53 Place, which would allow us to >> express relationships between this entity and other geopolitical >> units using existing properties. I see that there are precedents in >> the CRM for declaring a class as being a subclass of two different >> classes (e.g. E45 Address). However I am concerned about the fact >> that E4 Period already has 'place-ness' inherent in it. Should I be >> worried? Are there any guidelines I should be looking at? >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Richard >> >> -- >> *Richard Light* >> >> >> ___ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > -- > -- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638| >| Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | > | >Center for Cultural Informatics | >Information Systems Laboratory| > Institute of Computer Science| >Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | >N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -- > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- *Richard Light*
Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance
Dear Daria, Continuing, I'd like to point you to the definition of "Contact Point". I think it is consistent to regard networks as services, and IP adresses as identifiers that can be resolved by a particular service. Postal Adresses use to be the same in the aspect of resolution, but simultaneously the endpoint they resolve to is traditionally(!) an actual place, and actually in a way non-post office people can resolve. The question of P.O. boxes is a border case. IP adresses resolve to services again, but we do not have a "Service Name" class, as we do have a "Place Name" class, and the resolution is less transparent and persistently related to external entities, such as street names, city names, country names. I think "Contact Point" makes the generalization already you are asking for. All the best, martin On 5/11/2018 10:02 AM, Stephen Stead wrote: Dear Daria Good morning, I do not see the parallel between E53 Place and E45 Address with IP-addresses and VPN. In E53 Place we have a real-world place, typically a geographic extent on the surface of the Earth (though not restricted to this as we know) and in E45 Address we have a name for a place that is used in a particular context (for example postal). The parallel is closer to the relationship between MAC address and IP address. VPNs are just different contexts within which to reuse the names that are IP addresses. We should remember that instances of E53 Place may be well known in literature but not very well defined on the surface of the Earth; for example the Site of the Battle of Thermopylae is well known but the actual spatial extent is unknown (and actually, I would contend, unknowable!). We may have many guesses or approximations about its spatial extent and that is what the CRMgeo allows us to capture. We may also have many names or appellations for it and these names may be used in the real world for both the actual Site of the battle and for various approximations. Life and language are so wonderfully rich!! Best Regards SdS Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail ste...@paveprime.com<mailto:ste...@paveprime.com> LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ *From:*Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] *On Behalf Of *? ??? ??? *Sent:* 11 May 2018 06:31 *To:* Richard Light ; crm-sig *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance Dear all, generalising examples we get the same situation with E53 Place and E45 Address like we have now with IP-addresses and VPN. Real place with Internet-access can be somewhere on globe (GPS) and others recieve coded numbers (Singapore, Any Islands...), which are various in different time period. Taking in account we work with digital heritage too, better to find common decision in both cases, real and virtual. 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 <mailto:ho...@hermitage.ru> ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- -- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638| | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | | Center for Cultural Informatics | Information Systems Laboratory| Institute of Computer Science| Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | | N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | | Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | --
Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance
Dear Richard, Following the latest extensions of the scope note of E4 Period, a geopolitical entity is indeed regarded as a case (type, specialization) of E4 Period. Since E4 Period IsA E92 spacetime volume, its projection at some time or at all times is an E53 Place. See respective properties, they should covers all cases: P161, E93, P164. So, multiple inheritance yes, but with E92, not E53. Best, Martin On 5/11/2018 12:47 AM, Richard Light wrote: Hi, I'm wanting to encourage a colleague to use a CRM-based approach to a geographical-themed project. We're talking about geopolitical [and geographical] entities which have a known duration (e.g. 'Abingdon from the 17th century until local government reorganisation in 1974'). This could be modelled as a subclass of E4 Period, which neatly binds together the place and time aspects we want to record. Conversely it could be modelled as a subclass of E53 Place, which would allow us to express relationships between this entity and other geopolitical units using existing properties. I see that there are precedents in the CRM for declaring a class as being a subclass of two different classes (e.g. E45 Address). However I am concerned about the fact that E4 Period already has 'place-ness' inherent in it. Should I be worried? Are there any guidelines I should be looking at? Many thanks, Richard -- *Richard Light* ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- -- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638| | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | | Center for Cultural Informatics | Information Systems Laboratory| Institute of Computer Science| Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | | N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | | Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | --
Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance
Dear Daria Good morning, I do not see the parallel between E53 Place and E45 Address with IP-addresses and VPN. In E53 Place we have a real-world place, typically a geographic extent on the surface of the Earth (though not restricted to this as we know) and in E45 Address we have a name for a place that is used in a particular context (for example postal). The parallel is closer to the relationship between MAC address and IP address. VPNs are just different contexts within which to reuse the names that are IP addresses. We should remember that instances of E53 Place may be well known in literature but not very well defined on the surface of the Earth; for example the Site of the Battle of Thermopylae is well known but the actual spatial extent is unknown (and actually, I would contend, unknowable!). We may have many guesses or approximations about its spatial extent and that is what the CRMgeo allows us to capture. We may also have many names or appellations for it and these names may be used in the real world for both the actual Site of the battle and for various approximations. Life and language are so wonderfully rich!! Best Regards SdS Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail <mailto:ste...@paveprime.com> ste...@paveprime.com LinkedIn Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/> https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of ? ??? ??? Sent: 11 May 2018 06:31 To: Richard Light ; crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance Dear all, generalising examples we get the same situation with E53 Place and E45 Address like we have now with IP-addresses and VPN. Real place with Internet-access can be somewhere on globe (GPS) and others recieve coded numbers (Singapore, Any Islands...), which are various in different time period. Taking in account we work with digital heritage too, better to find common decision in both cases, real and virtual. 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 <mailto:ho...@hermitage.ru>
Re: [Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance
Dear all, generalising examples we get the same situation with E53 Place and E45 Address like we have now with IP-addresses and VPN. Real place with Internet-access can be somewhere on globe (GPS) and others recieve coded numbers (Singapore, Any Islands...), which are various in different time period. Taking in account we work with digital heritage too, better to find common decision in both cases, real and virtual. 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
[Crm-sig] Multiple inheritance
Hi, I'm wanting to encourage a colleague to use a CRM-based approach to a geographical-themed project. We're talking about geopolitical [and geographical] entities which have a known duration (e.g. 'Abingdon from the 17th century until local government reorganisation in 1974'). This could be modelled as a subclass of E4 Period, which neatly binds together the place and time aspects we want to record. Conversely it could be modelled as a subclass of E53 Place, which would allow us to express relationships between this entity and other geopolitical units using existing properties. I see that there are precedents in the CRM for declaring a class as being a subclass of two different classes (e.g. E45 Address). However I am concerned about the fact that E4 Period already has 'place-ness' inherent in it. Should I be worried? Are there any guidelines I should be looking at? Many thanks, Richard -- *Richard Light*
