Re: [Crm-sig] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49

2015-10-10 Thread martin 

Absolutely!

I have pointed out in several meetings and talking
to Nicola Guarino, who has first described identity criteria in
Formal Ontologies, that we need a better theory of that and
actual identity criteria for specific classes. Nicola only states
that there are criteria, but not which ones hold for a specific
type.

I assume there will be a relatively smal set of patterns.
This is brand new research, a topic of applied philosophy as
it appears. We should discuss that in the near future.

Best,

Martin

On 10/10/2015 9:31 πμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote:

Dear Martin, all

I totally agree with the below. In the end, it is a matter of identity 
criteria, which are perhaps beyond the scope of the CRM.

This opens another interesting issue, also possibly beyond the scope of the CRM 
but in my opinion not at all irrelevant for sharing data: how do I know that 
what you call a Ferrari (e.g. a vehicle) is the same as what I call a Ferrari 
(e.g. a collectible)? Perhaps referring to a thesaurus. If so, the use of 
thesaurus X, e.g. the (imaginary) one by the Automotive Constructors Guild, 
rather than Y, e.g. Getty's AAT, should be explicitly documented, with the data 
and not in the attached documentation.

This might ‘absorb’ the issue of characterizing the essential parts that must 
be present to consider the object still existing, and in the custody of someone.

Franco

Prof Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy






Il giorno 09/ott/2015, alle ore 19:47, martin  ha scritto:

Dear Franco,

I agree - it was not my intention that P49 would be the place to define 
identity concepts. I may have been
misunderstood in that matter. P49 and E10 are the only? places in the CRM where 
"physical possession" appears.
I just wanted to describe, that Physical Things have different concepts of 
identity. It is task of each type of E18 to define its own identity conditions. 
So, the Ferrari  as a functional instrument in traffic has identity conditions, 
and the Ferrari that got a museum exhibit it has other ones (it may loose te 
chassis number), and the transition is fuzzy, as always. Therefore we describe 
this by a transformation event - change of identity under preservation of some 
structured matter - or - the set of things described in the object record in 
the museum have been parts of theFerrari when admitted for traffic. See. e.g., 
what Enola Gay became when it was turned into a museum exhibit. So, when 
talking about what part of the matter/ molecules of the thing I should have 
under control to make the physical possession of a thing unambiguous, I just 
wanted to say it should not contradict to the way the type this thing belongs 
to requires identification. If someone wants to instantiate P49 unambiguously, 
it is a recommendation that he also defines the meaning of a representative 
part, portion or segment for that thing. If he does not, the KB may end up with 
the same object being at different places at the same time, not a pleasant 
conclusion. This is a hint against a bad practice that may exist in some 
museums having a small sherd and documenting it as if it were the whole 
original.

Would you agree on that?

Cheers,

Martin

On 6/10/2015 5:49 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote:

Dear Martin,

I slightly disagree. You cannot put the burden of the identity criteria of the 
E18 on P49, which simply associates the E18 to its custodian. Of course, if E18 
ceases to exist (as such), there is no issue and nothing to keep in custody.

The matter of the identity criteria is slippery. Simon’s Ferrari would exist 
and perhaps (P49) have a custodian, according to the law as regards civil 
responsibility, in this case identity relates to the permanence of the chassis 
number; as a collectible, the identity criteria might be totally different, 
probably requiring requiring original pieces.
Theseus’ ship identity depends on the regulations of the Ship Registry of 
Athens in the 3rd century BC, or whenever it was.
Cutlery - which is **possibly** an E78 collection - is again different. Think 
of a set of glasses that are more subject to changes compared with metal spoons 
and forks: you start with 12, then they break, one tonight, another one 
tomorrow, and so on. For how long would you consider them a set and not just 
spare glasses?
So, don’t ask poor P49 to help, it is an overwhelming task for it.

Franco


Prof Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy






Il giorno 05/ott/2015, alle ore 19:47, martin  ha scritto:

Dear Simon,

Your argument well taken, I hope I have not been misunderstood: In the case of 
the 12 spoons, forks, and knives, one may argue that as long as the majority of 
parts is in the hands of the curator, he has keept it, even if every piece has 
temporarily left his hands. This is different from

Re: [Crm-sig] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49

2015-10-10 Thread Franco Niccolucci 
Dear Martin, all

I totally agree with the below. In the end, it is a matter of identity 
criteria, which are perhaps beyond the scope of the CRM. 

This opens another interesting issue, also possibly beyond the scope of the CRM 
but in my opinion not at all irrelevant for sharing data: how do I know that 
what you call a Ferrari (e.g. a vehicle) is the same as what I call a Ferrari 
(e.g. a collectible)? Perhaps referring to a thesaurus. If so, the use of 
thesaurus X, e.g. the (imaginary) one by the Automotive Constructors Guild, 
rather than Y, e.g. Getty's AAT, should be explicitly documented, with the data 
and not in the attached documentation. 

This might ‘absorb’ the issue of characterizing the essential parts that must 
be present to consider the object still existing, and in the custody of 
someone. 

Franco

Prof Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy





> Il giorno 09/ott/2015, alle ore 19:47, martin  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Dear Franco,
> 
> I agree - it was not my intention that P49 would be the place to define 
> identity concepts. I may have been
> misunderstood in that matter. P49 and E10 are the only? places in the CRM 
> where "physical possession" appears.
> I just wanted to describe, that Physical Things have different concepts of 
> identity. It is task of each type of E18 to define its own identity 
> conditions. So, the Ferrari  as a functional instrument in traffic has 
> identity conditions, and the Ferrari that got a museum exhibit it has other 
> ones (it may loose te chassis number), and the transition is fuzzy, as 
> always. Therefore we describe this by a transformation event - change of 
> identity under preservation of some structured matter - or - the set of 
> things described in the object record in the museum have been parts of 
> theFerrari when admitted for traffic. See. e.g., what Enola Gay became when 
> it was turned into a museum exhibit. So, when talking about what part of the 
> matter/ molecules of the thing I should have under control to make the 
> physical possession of a thing unambiguous, I just wanted to say it should 
> not contradict to the way the type this thing belongs to requires 
> identification. If someone wants to instantiate P49 unambiguously, it is a 
> recommendation that he also defines the meaning of a representative part, 
> portion or segment for that thing. If he does not, the KB may end up with the 
> same object being at different places at the same time, not a pleasant 
> conclusion. This is a hint against a bad practice that may exist in some 
> museums having a small sherd and documenting it as if it were the whole 
> original.
> 
> Would you agree on that?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 6/10/2015 5:49 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
>> Dear Martin,
>> 
>> I slightly disagree. You cannot put the burden of the identity criteria of 
>> the E18 on P49, which simply associates the E18 to its custodian. Of course, 
>> if E18 ceases to exist (as such), there is no issue and nothing to keep in 
>> custody.
>> 
>> The matter of the identity criteria is slippery. Simon’s Ferrari would exist 
>> and perhaps (P49) have a custodian, according to the law as regards civil 
>> responsibility, in this case identity relates to the permanence of the 
>> chassis number; as a collectible, the identity criteria might be totally 
>> different, probably requiring requiring original pieces.
>> Theseus’ ship identity depends on the regulations of the Ship Registry of 
>> Athens in the 3rd century BC, or whenever it was.
>> Cutlery - which is **possibly** an E78 collection - is again different. 
>> Think of a set of glasses that are more subject to changes compared with 
>> metal spoons and forks: you start with 12, then they break, one tonight, 
>> another one tomorrow, and so on. For how long would you consider them a set 
>> and not just spare glasses?
>> So, don’t ask poor P49 to help, it is an overwhelming task for it.
>> 
>> Franco
>> 
>> 
>> Prof Franco Niccolucci
>> Director, VAST-LAB
>> PIN - U. of Florence
>> Scientific Coordinator
>> ARIADNE - PARTHENOS
>> 
>> Piazza Ciardi 25
>> 59100 Prato, Italy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Il giorno 05/ott/2015, alle ore 19:47, martin  ha 
>>> scritto:
>>> 
>>> Dear Simon,
>>> 
>>> Your argument well taken, I hope I have not been misunderstood: In the case 
>>> of the 12 spoons, forks, and knives, one may argue that as long as the 
>>> majority of parts is in the hands of the curator, he has keept it, even if 
>>> every piece has temporarily left his hands. This is different from marking 
>>> the chassis. One could even allow for all parts being exchanged, if the 
>>> object's identity is defined respectively. I'd regard these as different 
>>> ways to define a representative part. I believe they are all acceptable, as 
>>> long as they do not come in conflict with the natural concept of identity 
>>> of the object,

Re: [Crm-sig] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49

2015-10-09 Thread martin 

Dear Franco,

This is a different issue:

On 6/10/2015 5:49 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote:

Cutlery - which is **possibly** an E78 collection - is again different. Think 
of a set of glasses that are more subject to changes compared with metal spoons 
and forks: you start with 12, then they break, one tonight, another one 
tomorrow, and so on. For how long would you consider them a set and not just 
spare glasses?
I'd say, it is the job of the museum to define that. The CRM just 
recommends that there is a definition. It can be individual. It can have 
fuzzy transitions. The principle lays in the purpose of the concept: do 
you keep the glass as souvenir, as archaeological evidence, or for 
drinking. The glass as such has no identity.


opinions?

best,

martin





--

--
 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] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49

2015-10-06 Thread Franco Niccolucci 
Dear Martin,

I slightly disagree. You cannot put the burden of the identity criteria of the 
E18 on P49, which simply associates the E18 to its custodian. Of course, if E18 
ceases to exist (as such), there is no issue and nothing to keep in custody.

The matter of the identity criteria is slippery. Simon’s Ferrari would exist 
and perhaps (P49) have a custodian, according to the law as regards civil 
responsibility, in this case identity relates to the permanence of the chassis 
number; as a collectible, the identity criteria might be totally different, 
probably requiring requiring original pieces. 
Theseus’ ship identity depends on the regulations of the Ship Registry of 
Athens in the 3rd century BC, or whenever it was. 
Cutlery - which is **possibly** an E78 collection - is again different. Think 
of a set of glasses that are more subject to changes compared with metal spoons 
and forks: you start with 12, then they break, one tonight, another one 
tomorrow, and so on. For how long would you consider them a set and not just 
spare glasses? 
So, don’t ask poor P49 to help, it is an overwhelming task for it.

Franco


Prof Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy





> Il giorno 05/ott/2015, alle ore 19:47, martin  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Dear Simon,
> 
> Your argument well taken, I hope I have not been misunderstood: In the case 
> of the 12 spoons, forks, and knives, one may argue that as long as the 
> majority of parts is in the hands of the curator, he has keept it, even if 
> every piece has temporarily left his hands. This is different from marking 
> the chassis. One could even allow for all parts being exchanged, if the 
> object's identity is defined respectively. I'd regard these as different ways 
> to define a representative part. I believe they are all acceptable, as long 
> as they do not come in conflict with the natural concept of identity of the 
> object, and do not cause ambiguity about who has the object and who the 
> parts. With the cutlery, indeed someone could be regarded keeper of the 
> whole, and all parts dissapearing into different hands, leaving the keeper of 
> the whole with nothing in his hands. I think this should be avoided. Does 
> that make
> sense?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 5/10/2015 7:07 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:
>> I would argue that the extreme case is not the set of cutlery, but the Ship 
>> of Theseus- or more practically, the Car of Enzo. 
>> 
>> For models such as the 250 GTO,  it is very much the provenance in 
>> association with the chassis number that determine the identity over time. 
>> 
>> If a vehicle is crashed, then restored without a transfer of custody, any 
>> application of the new scope note may be post hoc.
>> 
>> Simon
>> 
>> On Oct 5, 2015 10:13 AM, "martin"  wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Issue:
>> P49:
>> 
>> This shortcut supposes the existence of at least one representative part 
>> standing physically for the whole. Discuss knowledge revision process if a 
>> piece taken to be the representative of the whole must be regarded piece of 
>> another. Things kept may have parts in other hands.
>> 
>> A comment should be stated. Steve, MD, Athinak should think together
>> 
>>  
>> I propose the scope note addition:
>> 
>> Scope note:  This property identifies the E39 Actor or Actors who have 
>> or have had custody of an instance of E18 Physical Thing at some time. This 
>> property leaves open the question if parts of this physical thing have been 
>> added or removed during the time-spans it has been under the custody of this 
>> actor, but it is required that at least a part which can unambiguously be 
>> identified as representing the whole has been under this custody for its 
>> whole time. For instance, in the extreme case of a set of cutlery we may 
>> require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of the actor.
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Martin
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> --
>>  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] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49

2015-10-05 Thread martin 

Dear Simon,

Your argument well taken, I hope I have not been misunderstood: In the 
case of the 12 spoons, forks, and knives, one may argue that as long as 
the majority of parts is in the hands of the curator, he has keept it, 
even if every piece has temporarily left his hands. This is different 
from marking the chassis. One could even allow for all parts being 
exchanged, if the object's identity is defined respectively. I'd regard 
these as different ways to define a representative part. I believe they 
are all acceptable, as long as they do not come in conflict with the 
natural concept of identity of the object, and do not cause ambiguity 
about who has the object and who the parts. With the cutlery, indeed 
someone could be regarded keeper of the whole, and all parts 
dissapearing into different hands, leaving the keeper of the whole with 
nothing in his hands. I think this should be avoided. Does that make

sense?

Cheers,

Martin

On 5/10/2015 7:07 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:


I would argue that the extreme case is not the set of cutlery, but the 
Ship of Theseus- or more practically, the Car of Enzo.


For models such as the 250 GTO,  it is very much the provenance in 
association with the chassis number that determine the identity over 
time.


If a vehicle is crashed, then restored without a transfer of custody, 
any application of the new scope note may be post hoc.


Simon

On Oct 5, 2015 10:13 AM, "martin" > wrote:


Dear All,

Issue:


P49:

This shortcut supposes the existence of at least one
representative part standing physically for the whole. Discuss
knowledge revision process if a piece taken to be the
representative of the whole must be regarded piece of another.
Things kept may have parts in other hands.

A comment should be stated. Steve, MD, Athinak should think together

I propose the scope note addition:

Scope note:This property identifies the E39 Actor or Actors who
have or have had custody of an instance of E18 Physical Thing at
some time. This property leaves open the question if parts of this
physical thing have been added or removed during the time-spans it
has been under the custody of this actor, but it is required that
at least a part which can unambiguously be identified as
representing the whole has been under this custody for its whole
time. For instance, in the extreme case of a set of cutlery we may
require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of the actor.


Best,

Martin

-- 


--
  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] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49

2015-10-05 Thread Simon Spero 
I would argue that the extreme case is not the set of cutlery, but the Ship
of Theseus- or more practically, the Car of Enzo.

For models such as the 250 GTO,  it is very much the provenance in
association with the chassis number that determine the identity over time.

If a vehicle is crashed, then restored without a transfer of custody, any
application of the new scope note may be post hoc.

Simon
On Oct 5, 2015 10:13 AM, "martin"  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Issue:
> P49:
>
> This shortcut supposes the existence of at least one representative part
> standing physically for the whole. Discuss knowledge revision process if a
> piece taken to be the representative of the whole must be regarded piece of
> another. Things kept may have parts in other hands.
>
> A comment should be stated. Steve, MD, Athinak should think together
>
>
>
> I propose the scope note addition:
>
> Scope note:  This property identifies the E39 Actor or Actors who
> have or have had custody of an instance of E18 Physical Thing at some time.
> This property leaves open the question if parts of this physical thing have
> been added or removed during the time-spans it has been under the custody
> of this actor, but it is required that at least a part which can
> unambiguously be identified as representing the whole has been under this
> custody for its whole time. For instance, in the extreme case of a set of
> cutlery we may require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of
> the actor.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> --
>  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
>
>

Re: [Crm-sig] HomeWork, ISSUE 276, P49

2015-10-05 Thread Simon Spero 
I would argue that the extreme case is not the set of cutlery, but the Ship
of Theseus- or more practically, the Car of Enzo.

For models such as the 250 GTO,  it is very much the provenance in
association with the chassis number that determine the identity over time.

If a vehicle is crashed, then restored without a transfer of custody, any
application of the new scope note may be post hoc.

Simon
On Oct 5, 2015 10:13 AM, "martin"  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Issue:
> P49:
>
> This shortcut supposes the existence of at least one representative part
> standing physically for the whole. Discuss knowledge revision process if a
> piece taken to be the representative of the whole must be regarded piece of
> another. Things kept may have parts in other hands.
>
> A comment should be stated. Steve, MD, Athinak should think together
>
>
>
> I propose the scope note addition:
>
> Scope note:  This property identifies the E39 Actor or Actors who
> have or have had custody of an instance of E18 Physical Thing at some time.
> This property leaves open the question if parts of this physical thing have
> been added or removed during the time-spans it has been under the custody
> of this actor, but it is required that at least a part which can
> unambiguously be identified as representing the whole has been under this
> custody for its whole time. For instance, in the extreme case of a set of
> cutlery we may require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of
> the actor.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> --
>  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
>
>