Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

Let me add two remarks:

Information lives from relations, not classes. To talk about 
arrangements to sell a physical object and a conceptual object, does not 
create a requirement for a class combining the two. You just sell two 
things of different nature, in one provision. You may describe a plan to 
do so. In order to list a set of things to be sold in a Plan (E29), does 
not create a need for a "set" class.


Our first concern is *NOT* to create new classes, if we can avoid it. A 
new class is a burden for implementation, use, training and integration, 
in a standard.


How long a physical aggregate is kept purposely together and used as 
one, does not affect its physical substance.


See attached slides about "Temporary Aggregates" we had proposed for 
biodiversity studies. It actually does not need a new class, as it does 
not introduce new properties. Simply, the production and destruction is 
implied in its use.


Best,

Martin

On 10/22/2019 12:26 AM, Athanasios Velios wrote:
What Martin describes was my understanding as well at the Linked.Art 
meeting. In response to Rob's notes:


I think that indeed we have the "lot (object)" which is a physical 
thing that is sold and "lot (record)" which is a document talking 
about the "lot (object)". Writing about a physical thing does not make 
it a concept, it creates a new concept. So I think there is no problem 
there.


The problem is Rob's note 4 which George also mentioned: that the lot 
that someone buys may be a non-material thing and aggregated only for 
the auction. It is likely a conceptual object, so maybe we need 
something like "P148 has component (is component of)" in that case?


If one goes down the "lot" as a subclass route, the two lots (lot 
physical and lot conceptual) should be different classes I think. But 
I can see that increases complexity.


T.

On 21/10/2019 19:56, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear Florian, All,

It is not clear to me why people do not want to use E18 for 
Aggregates that are not intended to grow over time in the sense of a 
collection. The time, how long they are together, does not play a 
role. The question is only, if they are well defined and identified 
for some time.


For biodiversity scenaria, we have used a concept of Temporary 
Aggregate which exists only within an Activity, such as a catch of 
plankton and counting the species in it.




--

 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



New Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation.pptx
Description: MS-Powerpoint 2007 presentation
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

If the auction lot is just a list, then we could model it as a list, 
which refers to the things. A plan of what to sell. If it is sold piece 
by piece to different clients, it is not clear why it should be regarded 
as one thing at all.


If it has an identifier for this particular set, regardless how far away 
the parts, and they are handled together under this identifier, there is 
a unity criterion conforming with E18. The composite object exists as 
long as its parts are can be accessed reasonably for the function 
characteristic for that object. If some figures of a set of chessmen has 
fallen into the sea, we regard that the set ceased to exist, because it 
is out of normal reach for playing with it.


We can check if a concept of a temporary aggregate would do the job.

See also the White Paper of Europeana about collections. There is a 
concept of sets of references used to talk about things, such as 
literature lists, which are not library holdings.


Best,

martin

On 10/22/2019 12:26 AM, Athanasios Velios wrote:
What Martin describes was my understanding as well at the Linked.Art 
meeting. In response to Rob's notes:


I think that indeed we have the "lot (object)" which is a physical 
thing that is sold and "lot (record)" which is a document talking 
about the "lot (object)". Writing about a physical thing does not make 
it a concept, it creates a new concept. So I think there is no problem 
there.


The problem is Rob's note 4 which George also mentioned: that the lot 
that someone buys may be a non-material thing and aggregated only for 
the auction. It is likely a conceptual object, so maybe we need 
something like "P148 has component (is component of)" in that case?


If one goes down the "lot" as a subclass route, the two lots (lot 
physical and lot conceptual) should be different classes I think. But 
I can see that increases complexity.


T.

On 21/10/2019 19:56, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear Florian, All,

It is not clear to me why people do not want to use E18 for 
Aggregates that are not intended to grow over time in the sense of a 
collection. The time, how long they are together, does not play a 
role. The question is only, if they are well defined and identified 
for some time.


For biodiversity scenaria, we have used a concept of Temporary 
Aggregate which exists only within an Activity, such as a catch of 
plankton and counting the species in it.


Since the CRM does not model subclasses without distinct properties, 
the Auction Lot is an E18, and you are free to introduce your own 
subclass for it.


Making E78 any aggregate, we come in conflicts separating it from 
E18. NOTE, that an E18 does not require physical coherence, such as 
sets of chessmen etc. We would then have competing models, if the 
distinction cannot be made clearly.


We have discussed repeatedly, that a useful distinction of 
"non-aggregates" from "aggregates" cannot be made.


Opinions?

Best,

Martin

On 10/21/2019 1:43 PM, Florian Kräutli wrote:

Dear George,

This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope 
note of E78 suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but 
there is no satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of 
collections you describe.


However, instead of introducing another class and then having to 
come up with criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' 
I would rather extend the examples under E78 to include other types 
of aggregates.


Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for 
auction lots, as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated 
Holding. The term in the scope note that might stand in the way is 
that the aggregation is said to be assembled "according to a 
particular *collection development plan*". An auction lot is not 
generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but 
it is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that 
term is necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as 
a Collection.


Best,

Florian

On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker 
mailto:george.bruse...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Dear all,

At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting 
to model information related to auctions. It happens that during 
auctions, lots (collections or sets of things) are created with the 
intention that things will be sold together. Ie they are 
aggregates. In facing the question of modelling this, we seem to 
have some options.


1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to 
hold these things together for a day or so and to sell them together


2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended 
modelling aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts.


The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes 
against the intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one 
instantiating a physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for 
E78) for an aggregate that will possibly o

Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

[Athanasios Velios]

What Martin describes was my understanding as well at the Linked.Art 
meeting. In response to Rob's notes:


I think that indeed we have the "lot (object)" which is a physical thing 
that is sold and "lot (record)" which is a document talking about the 
"lot (object)". Writing about a physical thing does not make it a 
concept, it creates a new concept. So I think there is no problem there.


The problem is Rob's note 4 which George also mentioned: that the lot 
that someone buys may be a non-material thing and aggregated only for 
the auction. It is likely a conceptual object, so maybe we need 
something like "P148 has component (is component of)" in that case?


If one goes down the "lot" as a subclass route, the two lots (lot 
physical and lot conceptual) should be different classes I think. But I 
can see that increases complexity.


T.

On 21/10/2019 19:56, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear Florian, All,

It is not clear to me why people do not want to use E18 for Aggregates 
that are not intended to grow over time in the sense of a collection. 
The time, how long they are together, does not play a role. The question 
is only, if they are well defined and identified for some time.


For biodiversity scenaria, we have used a concept of Temporary Aggregate 
which exists only within an Activity, such as a catch of plankton and 
counting the species in it.


Since the CRM does not model subclasses without distinct properties, the 
Auction Lot is an E18, and you are free to introduce your own subclass 
for it.


Making E78 any aggregate, we come in conflicts separating it from E18. 
NOTE, that an E18 does not require physical coherence, such as sets of 
chessmen etc. We would then have competing models, if the distinction 
cannot be made clearly.


We have discussed repeatedly, that a useful distinction of 
"non-aggregates" from "aggregates" cannot be made.


Opinions?

Best,

Martin

On 10/21/2019 1:43 PM, Florian Kräutli wrote:

Dear George,

This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note 
of E78 suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there 
is no satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections 
you describe.


However, instead of introducing another class and then having to come 
up with criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' I 
would rather extend the examples under E78 to include other types of 
aggregates.


Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for 
auction lots, as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated 
Holding. The term in the scope note that might stand in the way is 
that the aggregation is said to be assembled "according to a 
particular *collection development plan*". An auction lot is not 
generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but it 
is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that term 
is necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as a 
Collection.


Best,

Florian

On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker > wrote:


Dear all,

At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting 
to model information related to auctions. It happens that during 
auctions, lots (collections or sets of things) are created with the 
intention that things will be sold together. Ie they are aggregates. 
In facing the question of modelling this, we seem to have some options.


1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to 
hold these things together for a day or so and to sell them together


2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended 
modelling aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts.


The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes against 
the intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one 
instantiating a physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for 
E78) for an aggregate that will possibly only ever be together once. 
In fact, since the objects are only put together in the lot for the 
intention of sale, they may not have had to have been physically 
brought together as a physical item ever. In this sense modelling 
them with either E78 or E19 seems to break ontological commitment (ie 
we do not think that these things were ever brought together or 
treated physically as one).


Because Linked.art also has members in the group who represent modern 
art museums, the discussion also comes upon the possibility that 
included in the lot of things sold may be some sort of intellectual 
thing, no physical object at all. Obviously because of its nature, we 
could not bundle a conceptual object with a physical object using 
physical mereology relations. So... modelling difficulty ahoy!


Could we take up this discussion during SIG (or if there is already a 
satisfactory solution overlooked can it be referred to)?


To me it seems to raise the question of the possibility of defining a 
conceptual object class for 'set', although I am 

Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Florian, All,

It is not clear to me why people do not want to use E18 for Aggregates 
that are not intended to grow over time in the sense of a collection. 
The time, how long they are together, does not play a role. The question 
is only, if they are well defined and identified for some time.


For biodiversity scenaria, we have used a concept of Temporary Aggregate 
which exists only within an Activity, such as a catch of plankton and 
counting the species in it.


Since the CRM does not model subclasses without distinct properties, the 
Auction Lot is an E18, and you are free to introduce your own subclass 
for it.


Making E78 any aggregate, we come in conflicts separating it from E18. 
NOTE, that an E18 does not require physical coherence, such as sets of 
chessmen etc. We would then have competing models, if the distinction 
cannot be made clearly.


We have discussed repeatedly, that a useful distinction of 
"non-aggregates" from "aggregates" cannot be made.


Opinions?

Best,

Martin

On 10/21/2019 1:43 PM, Florian Kräutli wrote:

Dear George,

This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note 
of E78 suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there 
is no satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections 
you describe.


However, instead of introducing another class and then having to come 
up with criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' I 
would rather extend the examples under E78 to include other types of 
aggregates.


Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for 
auction lots, as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated 
Holding. The term in the scope note that might stand in the way is 
that the aggregation is said to be assembled "according to a 
particular *collection development plan*". An auction lot is not 
generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but it 
is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that term 
is necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as a 
Collection.


Best,

Florian

On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker > wrote:


Dear all,

At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting 
to model information related to auctions. It happens that during 
auctions, lots (collections or sets of things) are created with the 
intention that things will be sold together. Ie they are aggregates. 
In facing the question of modelling this, we seem to have some options.


1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to 
hold these things together for a day or so and to sell them together


2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended 
modelling aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts.


The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes against 
the intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one 
instantiating a physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for 
E78) for an aggregate that will possibly only ever be together once. 
In fact, since the objects are only put together in the lot for the 
intention of sale, they may not have had to have been physically 
brought together as a physical item ever. In this sense modelling 
them with either E78 or E19 seems to break ontological commitment (ie 
we do not think that these things were ever brought together or 
treated physically as one).


Because Linked.art also has members in the group who represent modern 
art museums, the discussion also comes upon the possibility that 
included in the lot of things sold may be some sort of intellectual 
thing, no physical object at all. Obviously because of its nature, we 
could not bundle a conceptual object with a physical object using 
physical mereology relations. So... modelling difficulty ahoy!


Could we take up this discussion during SIG (or if there is already a 
satisfactory solution overlooked can it be referred to)?


To me it seems to raise the question of the possibility of defining a 
conceptual object class for 'set', although I am sure this will open 
up a large discussion!


Look forward to see you all soon!

Best,

George

ref: https://github.com/linked-art/linked.art/issues/281


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



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



--

 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] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

[Robert Sanderson]

Dear all,

There were three issues that came up with E78 … the scope note being, I think, 
the least concern.


  1.  The scope note is very specific that the collection is assembled, 
maintained, curated, preserved over time for a specific purpose and audience 
according to some plan, and that “collective objects” such as a tomb of gifts 
or a folder of stamps, should instead be E19. An auction lot is not maintained 
or preserved over time.  The semantics could be weakened to allow for “sets of 
physical objects that are collected for some purpose” (or similar) but then 
there are the following two concerns …
  2.  What is the End of Existence / Destruction of an E78?  For example, when 
an auction lot is sold there is still a reference to it in the auction catalog, 
but the physicality of the aggregation is potentially ended. If an art dealer 
buys the lot, then they’re very unlikely to sell the objects together or even 
record that it was a lot. But there’s no Destruction event, as each of the 
members remains untouched. The scoping decision documented in E6 would suggest 
that the E78 is transformed (as the matter is preserved but the identity is 
lost) … but E81 is documented as being the simultaneous Destruction and 
Production that preserves the substance with a different nature of identity. 
The member objects are not modified or destroyed in any way.
  3.  (2b) Similarly, even if all of the members are destroyed, the auction lot 
persists as an entity of discourse. We can talk about the auction lot that 
collected two paintings that were then destroyed completely by fire. This makes 
it, in my view, a Conceptual Object.
  4.  E78 can only include physical things, yet there are frequently auctions 
(or other groupings) that include both physical things and non-physical, such 
as the right to perform a particular piece of art or theatre. This also impacts 
the ongoing rights discussion (how to do you acquire the right to perform?), 
but the inclusion in the auction lot is mostly orthogonal to this.

Thus the set of objects seems conceptual, not physical … meaning something like 
a Set class that has members, rather than a Physical class that has parts. This 
could also be appropriate as a super-class for Group, I think, in that we can 
talk about a set of people that is not an Actor – this would solve the gender 
issue, as there is a set of all persons that identify as female, without 
implying a Group that is necessarily able of taking coherent action.

Rob

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Florian Kräutli 

Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 3:46 AM
To: George Bruseker 
Cc: crm-sig 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

Dear George,

This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note of E78 
suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there is no 
satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections you describe.

However, instead of introducing another class and then having to come up with 
criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' I would rather extend 
the examples under E78 to include other types of aggregates.

Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for auction lots, 
as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated Holding. The term in the 
scope note that might stand in the way is that the aggregation is said to be 
assembled "according to a particular collection development plan". An auction 
lot is not generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but 
it is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that term is 
necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as a Collection.

Best,

Florian


On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker 
mailto:george.bruse...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear all,

At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting to model 
information related to auctions. It happens that during auctions, lots 
(collections or sets of things) are created with the intention that things will 
be sold together. Ie they are aggregates. In facing the question of modelling 
this, we seem to have some options.

1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to hold these 
things together for a day or so and to sell them together

2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended modelling 
aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts.

The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes against the 
intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one instantiating a 
physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for E78) for an aggregate that 
will possibly only ever be together once. In fact, since the objects are only 
put together in the lot for the intention of sale, they may not have had to 
have been physically brought together as a physical item ever. In this sense 
modelling them with either E78 or E19 s

Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

[Florian Kräutli]

Dear George,

This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note of E78 
suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there is no 
satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections you describe.

However, instead of introducing another class and then having to come up with 
criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' I would rather extend 
the examples under E78 to include other types of aggregates.

Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for auction lots, 
as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated Holding. The term in the 
scope note that might stand in the way is that the aggregation is said to be 
assembled "according to a particular collection development plan". An auction 
lot is not generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but 
it is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that term is 
necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as a Collection.

Best,

Florian 

> On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting to model 
> information related to auctions. It happens that during auctions, lots 
> (collections or sets of things) are created with the intention that things 
> will be sold together. Ie they are aggregates. In facing the question of 
> modelling this, we seem to have some options.
> 
> 1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to hold 
> these things together for a day or so and to sell them together
> 
> 2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended modelling 
> aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts. 
> 
> The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes against the 
> intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one instantiating a 
> physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for E78) for an aggregate 
> that will possibly only ever be together once. In fact, since the objects are 
> only put together in the lot for the intention of sale, they may not have had 
> to have been physically brought together as a physical item ever. In this 
> sense modelling them with either E78 or E19 seems to break ontological 
> commitment (ie we do not think that these things were ever brought together 
> or treated physically as one).
> 
> Because Linked.art also has members in the group who represent modern art 
> museums, the discussion also comes upon the possibility that included in the 
> lot of things sold may be some sort of intellectual thing, no physical object 
> at all. Obviously because of its nature, we could not bundle a conceptual 
> object with a physical object using physical mereology relations. So... 
> modelling difficulty ahoy!
> 
> Could we take up this discussion during SIG (or if there is already a 
> satisfactory solution overlooked can it be referred to)? 
> 
> To me it seems to raise the question of the possibility of defining a 
> conceptual object class for 'set', although I am sure this will open up a 
> large discussion!
> 
> Look forward to see you all soon!
> 
> Best,
> 
> George
> 
> ref: https://github.com/linked-art/linked.art/issues/281 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig