Re: [Crm-sig] (Geographic) Place vs. SpaceTimeVolume (?) ISSUE: make methodology clear. ISSUE add "islands" to E27 Site.

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Dan,

On 10/6/2019 5:46 PM, Dan Matei wrote:

Dear Martin,

Thanks for the corrections (that's what I asked for :-)


-Original Message-
From: Martin Doerr 
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 20:47:07 +0300

I do not understand what you mean by making your life "easy".

To make my life "easy", I'm looking for is a kind of shortcut
  
Let's say:


I propose:

<#Martin>   

<#extent of Heraklion 2019>  

<#Martin>  <#extent of Heraklion 2019>

..

<#City of Heraklion>  

<#City of Heraklion>  <.administrational unit...>

<#City of Heraklion>  <#extent of Heraklion 2019> 





<#Martin>  
<#Heraklion>  
<#Heraklion>  <"Iráklion">
<#H>  
<#Heraklion>  <#H>
<#H>  <"35.3250, 25.1306">
<#Martin>  <#H>

Since I do not want to say "Martin is living in <35.3250, 25.1306>":

<#Martin>  <#H>  
<"35.3250,
25.1306">

but ""Martin is living in Iráklion":

<#Martin>  <#H>  
<#Heraklion>
 <"Iráklion">.

This detour makes also the query in my database a bit more "expensive".

Best,

Dan





--

 Dr. Martin Doerr

 Honorary Head of the
 Center for Cultural Informatics

 Information Systems Laboratory
 Institute of Computer Science
 Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)

 N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
 GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece

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

Re: [Crm-sig] (Geographic) Place vs. SpaceTimeVolume (?) ISSUE: make methodology clear. ISSUE add "islands" to E27 Site.

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Franco, All,

My apologies for writing in this dogmatic style! I'd like to bring to 
your attention, that discussing only solutions about concepts, without a 
clear understanding of the principles, will not enable this Group to 
maintain the CRM in the long run. I would like to reduce my role acting 
as a sort of authority for modelling decisions, because I have repeated 
thereby the same principles already dozens of times, and would like 
others, in particular younger colleagues, to be able to apply them 
and/or improve them. Therefore I kindly ask you to pay more attention to 
the principles than the solutions, and forgive me if I point to them 
from now on in a blunt way:-[, this is never disrespect from my side.


By the way, there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. So 
please continue to write whatever comes to your mindIn particular 
the "why" of ontological choices, rather than the "what is a"


All the best and thank you all for your contributions:-).

Martin

On 10/5/2019 10:50 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote:

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

Un

Re: [Crm-sig] (Geographic) Place vs. SpaceTimeVolume (?)

[Dan Matei]

Dear Franco,

Thanks for your clarifications. Very useful for my understanding...

Also thanks a lot for the fine papers you offered. Illuminating...

-Original Message-
From: Franco Niccolucci 


> I am a bit scared by what you propose. Let me summarize your procedure.

Just a bit ? :-)

> You have a bag of things: islands, settlements (by the way, what do you mean 
> by settlement?),
> territories.

Settlement, i.e. "inhabited place", as TGN name it.


A note: in "Gazetteers" you and Sorin suggest:

crm:160.1_at 
for 
crm:160_has_temporal_projection .

I could use a symmetric:

crm:161.1_during 
for 
crm:161_has_spatial_projection < crm:E53_Place>.

Best,

Dan

Re: [Crm-sig] (Geographic) Place vs. SpaceTimeVolume (?) ISSUE: make methodology clear. ISSUE add "islands" to E27 Site.

[Dan Matei]

Dear Martin,

Thanks for the corrections (that's what I asked for :-)


-Original Message-
From: Martin Doerr 
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
List-Post: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 20:47:07 +0300
> 
> I do not understand what you mean by making your life "easy".

To make my life "easy", I'm looking for is a kind of shortcut

Let's say:

<#Martin>  
<#Heraklion>  
<#Heraklion>  <"Iráklion">
<#H>  
<#Heraklion>  <#H>
<#H>  <"35.3250, 25.1306">
<#Martin>  <#H>

Since I do not want to say "Martin is living in <35.3250, 25.1306>":

<#Martin>  <#H> 
 <"35.3250, 
25.1306">

but ""Martin is living in Iráklion":

<#Martin>  <#H>  
<#Heraklion> 
 <"Iráklion">.

This detour makes also the query in my database a bit more "expensive".

Best,

Dan

Re: [Crm-sig] (Geographic) Place vs. SpaceTimeVolume (?) ISSUE: make methodology clear. ISSUE add "islands" to E27 Site.

[Franco Niccolucci]

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,
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 10/5/2019 8:40 AM, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
>
> 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 permanent

Re: [Crm-sig] (Geographic) Place vs. SpaceTimeVolume (?) ISSUE: make methodology clear. ISSUE add "islands" to E27 Site.

[Martin Doerr]

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,

Martin



On 10/5/2019 8:40 AM, Franco Niccolucci wrote:

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

Re: [Crm-sig] (Geographic) Place vs. SpaceTimeVolume (?)

[Franco Niccolucci]

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