Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Franco,

I agree in all points and with your later messages, only, I would not 
talk about a sample when the material stays in situ. I'd just describe 
it with another class, and exclude this sense from the definition. I'd 
say we measure properties in some area of the object, because the 
further history is that of the whole object. The "sample area" is not 
particularly protected. Therefore I do not see an individuality to the 
sampling area.


The splitting is interesting, because then we have a unit of matter that 
makes its own history, but the "sampleness" goes back to the initial 
removal. Since this is frequent practice, we need to think about the 
identity and unity criteria. Probably we need a transitive property of 
its own. If we have a bore core, we can split it along the drilling 
direction. If it is liquid or powder, direction doesn't matter.


Any good idea?

All the best,

Martin

On 4/10/2018 8:38 PM, 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.


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 
mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

​As you may know, Franco, fresh water has the highest density around 4 degrees 
celcius, which is the reason lakes do not become ice blocks and rivers and 
streems do normally not become ice neither in the Alps nor in Norway.


I have read the scope notes which I should have done. A sample is a physical 
thing (stuff). The instances of the classes

S10 Material Substantial
S11 Amount of Matter
S12 Amount of Fluid
S14 Fluid Body

are all physical stuff.  Instances of S13 Sample on the other hand, are "taken 
from some instance of S10 Material Substantial with the intention to be 
representative for some material qualities ​".

In an archeaological excavation finds may be modelled as physical objects, not 
as archeological finds. It is the circumstances, the event. which define the 
context.

A sample a result of a controlled sample taking event.  My question is: Is it 
correct to define a separate class for samples?  Is it correct to include the 
intention of the creation of a physical thing into the thing itself?

Best,
Christian-Emil






From: Franco Niccolucci 
Sent: 11 April 2018 11:19
To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore
Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: 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 
mailto: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 
mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf 
of Athanasios Velios mailto:a.vel...@arts.ac.uk>>
Sent: 11 April 2018 10:15
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto: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
> art

Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11

[Franco Niccolucci]

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

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

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.
>
> 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, M

Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11

[Athanasios Velios]

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.

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
mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11

[P.M. van Leusen]

I stand corrected!

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 15:19 Martin Doerr  wrote:

> 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:
>
> "no stability of form is required" would exclude some types of samples,
> e.g. kubiena tin samples taken for microstratigraphy, palynology, or
> paleomagnetism. I would advise excising this phrase.
> Martijn
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 21:19 Martin Doerr  wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here my proposal for a better scope note:
>>
>> S11 Amount of Matter[1]
>>
>>
>>
>> Subclass of: S10
>> <#m_-4500053899348536980_m_2886038186972212311__S10_Material_Substantial> 
>> Material
>> Substantial
>>
>> Superclass of:  S12
>> <#m_-4500053899348536980_m_2886038186972212311__S12_Amount_of> Amount of
>> Fluid
>>
>>S13
>> <#m_-4500053899348536980_m_2886038186972212311__S13_Sample> Sample
>>
>>
>>
>> Scope note: This class comprises fixed amounts of matter
>> specified as some air, some water, some soil, etc., defined by the total
>> and integrity of their material content. In order to be able to identify
>> and recognize in practice one instance of S11 Amount of Matter, some sort
>> of confinement is needed that serves as a constraint for the enclosed
>> matter and the integrity of the content, such as a bottle. In contrast to
>> instances of E18 Physical Thing, no stability of form is required. The
>> content may be put into another bottle without loosing its identity.
>> Subclasses may define very different identity conditions for the integrity
>> of the content, such as chemical composition, or the sequence of layers of
>> a bore core. Whereas an instance of E18 Physical Thing may gradually change
>> form and chemical composition preserving its identity, such as living
>> beings, an instance of S11 Amount of Matter may loose its identifying
>> features by such processes. What matters for the identity of an instance of
>> S1 Amount of Matter is the preservation of a relevant composition from the
>> initial state of definition on.
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>  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
>>
>
> --
> --
>  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)   |
>  

Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11

[Franco Niccolucci]

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
>> 
>> 
>> 190000, 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

[Franco Niccolucci]

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:
>>> "no stability of form is required" would exclude some types of samples, 
>>> e.g. kubiena tin samples taken for microstratigraphy, palynology, or 
>>> paleomagnetism. I would advise excising this phrase.
>>> Martijn
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 

Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11

[Martin Doerr]

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 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:

"no stability of form is required" would exclude some types of
samples, e.g. kubiena tin samples taken for microstratigraphy,
palynology, or paleomagnetism. I would advise excising this phrase.
Martijn

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 21:19 Martin Doerr mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:

 Dear All,

 Here my proposal for a better scope note:


   S11 Amount of Matter[1]

 Subclass of: S10
 <#m_2886038186972212311__S10_Material_Substantial> Material
 Substantial

 Superclass of:S12 <#m_2886038186972212311__S12_Amount_of> Amount
 of Fluid

 S13 <#m_2886038186972212311__S13_Sample> Sample

 Scope note:This class comprises fixed amounts of matter specified
 as some air, some water, some soil, etc., defined by the total
 and integrity of their material content. In order to be able to
 identify and recognize in practice one instance of S11 Amount of
 Matter, some sort of confinement is needed that serves as a
 constraint for the enclosed matter and the integrity of the
 content, such as a bottle. In contrast to instances of E18
 Physical Thing, no stability of form is required. The content m

Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11

[Дарья Юрьевна Гук]

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 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:
> >> "no stability of form is required" would exclude some types of 
> >> samples, e.g. kubiena tin samples taken for microstratigraphy, 
> >> palynology, or paleomagnetism. I would advise excising this phrase.
> >> Martijn
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 21:19 Martin Doerr  >> <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> Here my proposal for a better scope note:
> >>
> >>
> >>   S11 Amount of Matter[1]
> >>
> >> Subclass of: S10
> >> <#m_2886038186972212311__S10_Material_Substantial> Material
> >> Substantial
> >>
> >> Superclass of:S12 <#m_2886038186972212311__S12_Amount_of> Amount
> >> of Fluid
> >>
> >> S13 <#m_2886038186972212311__S13_Sample> Sample
> >>
> >> Scope note:This class comprises fixed amounts of matter specified
> >> as some air, some water, some soil, etc., defined by the total
> >> and integrity of their material content. In order to be able to
> >> identify and recognize in practice one instance of S11 Amount of
> >> Matter, some sort of confinement is needed that serves as a
> >> constraint for the enclosed matter and the integrity of the
> >> content, such as a bottle. In contrast to instances of E18
> >> Physical Thing, no stability of form is required. The content may
> >> be put into another bottle without loosing its identity.
> >> Subclasses may define very different identity conditions for the
> >> integrity of the content, such as chemical composition, or the
> >> sequence of layers of a bore core. Whereas an instance of E18
> >> Physical Thing may gradually change form and chemical composition
> >> preserving its identity, such as living beings, an instance of
> >> S11 Amount of Matter may loose its identifying features by such
> >> processes. What matters for the identity of an instance of S1
> >> Amount of Matter is the preservation of a relevant composition
> >> from the initial state of definition on.
> >>
> >>
> 
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> --
> >>   Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
> >>   Research Director |  Fax:+30(

Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11

[Martin Doerr]

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:
"no stability of form is required" would exclude some types of 
samples, e.g. kubiena tin samples taken for microstratigraphy, 
palynology, or paleomagnetism. I would advise excising this phrase.

Martijn

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 21:19 Martin Doerr > wrote:


Dear All,

Here my proposal for a better scope note:


  S11 Amount of Matter[1]

Subclass of: S10
<#m_2886038186972212311__S10_Material_Substantial> Material
Substantial

Superclass of:S12 <#m_2886038186972212311__S12_Amount_of> Amount
of Fluid

S13 <#m_2886038186972212311__S13_Sample> Sample

Scope note:This class comprises fixed amounts of matter specified
as some air, some water, some soil, etc., defined by the total
and integrity of their material content. In order to be able to
identify and recognize in practice one instance of S11 Amount of
Matter, some sort of confinement is needed that serves as a
constraint for the enclosed matter and the integrity of the
content, such as a bottle. In contrast to instances of E18
Physical Thing, no stability of form is required. The content may
be put into another bottle without loosing its identity.
Subclasses may define very different identity conditions for the
integrity of the content, such as chemical composition, or the
sequence of layers of a bore core. Whereas an instance of E18
Physical Thing may gradually change form and chemical composition
preserving its identity, such as living beings, an instance of
S11 Amount of Matter may loose its identifying features by such
processes. What matters for the identity of an instance of S1
Amount of Matter is the preservation of a relevant composition
from the initial state of definition on.



-- 
--

  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



--
--
  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 

Re: [Crm-sig] HW S11

[Martin Doerr]

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:
"no stability of form is required" would exclude some types of 
samples, e.g. kubiena tin samples taken for microstratigraphy, 
palynology, or paleomagnetism. I would advise excising this phrase.

Martijn

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 21:19 Martin Doerr > wrote:


Dear All,

Here my proposal for a better scope note:


  S11 Amount of Matter[1]

Subclass of: S10
<#m_2886038186972212311__S10_Material_Substantial> Material
Substantial

Superclass of:S12 <#m_2886038186972212311__S12_Amount_of> Amount
of Fluid

S13 <#m_2886038186972212311__S13_Sample> Sample

Scope note:This class comprises fixed amounts of matter specified
as some air, some water, some soil, etc., defined by the total and
integrity of their material content. In order to be able to
identify and recognize in practice one instance of S11 Amount of
Matter, some sort of confinement is needed that serves as a
constraint for the enclosed matter and the integrity of the
content, such as a bottle. In contrast to instances of E18
Physical Thing, no stability of form is required. The content may
be put into another bottle without loosing its identity.
Subclasses may define very different identity conditions for the
integrity of the content, such as chemical composition, or the
sequence of layers of a bore core. Whereas an instance of E18
Physical Thing may gradually change form and chemical composition
preserving its identity, such as living beings, an instance of S11
Amount of Matter may loose its identifying features by such
processes. What matters for the identity of an instance of S1
Amount of Matter is the preservation of a relevant composition
from the initial state of definition on.



-- 
--

  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



--
--
 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] HW S11

[P.M. van Leusen]

"no stability of form is required" would exclude some types of samples,
e.g. kubiena tin samples taken for microstratigraphy, palynology, or
paleomagnetism. I would advise excising this phrase.
Martijn

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 21:19 Martin Doerr  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Here my proposal for a better scope note:
>
> S11 Amount of Matter[1]
>
>
>
> Subclass of: S10
> <#m_2886038186972212311__S10_Material_Substantial> Material Substantial
>
> Superclass of:  S12 <#m_2886038186972212311__S12_Amount_of> Amount of
> Fluid
>
>S13 <#m_2886038186972212311__S13_Sample> Sample
>
>
>
> Scope note: This class comprises fixed amounts of matter
> specified as some air, some water, some soil, etc., defined by the total
> and integrity of their material content. In order to be able to identify
> and recognize in practice one instance of S11 Amount of Matter, some sort
> of confinement is needed that serves as a constraint for the enclosed
> matter and the integrity of the content, such as a bottle. In contrast to
> instances of E18 Physical Thing, no stability of form is required. The
> content may be put into another bottle without loosing its identity.
> Subclasses may define very different identity conditions for the integrity
> of the content, such as chemical composition, or the sequence of layers of
> a bore core. Whereas an instance of E18 Physical Thing may gradually change
> form and chemical composition preserving its identity, such as living
> beings, an instance of S11 Amount of Matter may loose its identifying
> features by such processes. What matters for the identity of an instance of
> S1 Amount of Matter is the preservation of a relevant composition from the
> initial state of definition on.
> --
>
>
>
> --
> --
>  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
>