Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Achille Felicetti]

only in part the essence of what a text is, not 
>> taking into account its ‘materiality’ which is a fundamental component of 
>> its identity”
>> 
>> We did similar considerations for E37. Thus, a written text in our 
>> perspective is defined as the product of a semiotic process, involving an 
>> encoding (“writing”) and a decoding (“reading”) process. The scope note for 
>> the Written Text class says that it is a … 
>> 
>> “… subclass of E25 Man-Made Feature intended to describe a particular 
>> feature (i.e., set of glyphs) created (i.e., written) on various kinds of 
>> support, having semiotic significance and the declared purpose of conveying 
>> a specific message towards a given recipient or group of recipients”
>> 
>> We have submitted a third paper on the subject to the Semantic Web Journal 
>> (special issue for Cultural Heritage) and is currently under review. I will 
>> also send you references of that if it is approved. Concerning the 
>> linguistic value of a text, an excerpt from it is reported below:
>> 
>> 
>> "Although every speech can be transposed into an equivalent written message, 
>> and vice versa, speech has a priority over writing, at least in four 
>> respects: phylogenetic, ontogenetic, functional and structural. In fact, all 
>> languages are spoken but not necessarily written; every human being learns 
>> to speak naturally spontaneously, the ability to write coming only later and 
>> through specific training; the spoken language is used in a wider and 
>> differentiated range of uses and functions; writing originated as a 
>> representation of speech. According to Ferdinand de Saussure [17], in fact, 
>> «a language and its written form constitute two separate systems of signs. 
>> The sole reason for the existence of the latter is to represent the former». 
>> In this semiotic perspective, it is worth considering that even in writing, 
>> as in the analysis of the linguistic system, it is necessary to distinguish 
>> the concrete level of the personal execution (i.e. the real act of tracing 
>> signs on a surface) from the abstract level which all the single occurrences 
>> must be took back to, on the basis of a sameness principle (e.g. the 
>> identification of an “A”, independently from the peculiar shape somebody 
>> gives to it).
>> 
>> This, as it is easy to understand, marks a decisive difference with the 
>> marks, in which the linguistic aspect is decidedly less marked, even in the 
>> presence of monograms and other similar symbols (which remain symbols 
>> without phonetic value, although using signs usually devoted to 
>> representation of sounds).
>> 
>> I hope this helps. However, we are convinced that a thorough revision of 
>> classes E34 and d E37 is absolutely necessary. Could this be a topic of 
>> discussion at the next SIG?
>> 
>> Bests,
>> Achille
>> 
>> 
>>> Il giorno 20 gen 2020, alle ore 00:31, Ethan Gruber >> <mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> A short text on a physical object is always an inscription. Whether or not 
>>> it's a mark (according to the current definition in the ontology) probably 
>>> depends on a greater level of specialized knowledge.
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:04 PM Robert Sanderson >> <mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s on a 
>>> physical object … how can I know when that should be a  
>>>  Mark+Linguistic Object, or when it is an Inscription?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Rob
>>> 
>>>  
>>> From: Crm-sig >> <mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Martin Doerr 
>>> mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
>>> Date: Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM
>>> To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>" 
>>> mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>>> 
>>>  
>>> I understand the following:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that 
>>> are not inscriptions.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are 
>>> also Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other 
>>> Linguistic Objects among the Marks.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> It is most probably the case, but we neither

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Martin Doerr]

ated as a representation of speech. 
According to Ferdinand de Saussure [17], in fact, «a language and its 
written form constitute two separate systems of signs. The sole reason 
for the existence of the latter is to represent the former». In this 
semiotic perspective, it is worth considering that even in writing, as 
in the analysis of the linguistic system, it is necessary to 
distinguish the concrete level of the personal execution (i.e. the 
real act of tracing signs on a surface) from the abstract level which 
all the single occurrences must be took back to, on the basis of a 
sameness principle (e.g. the identification of an “A”, independently 
from the peculiar shape somebody gives to it).


This, as it is easy to understand, marks a decisive difference with 
the marks, in which the linguistic aspect is decidedly less marked, 
even in the presence of monograms and other similar symbols (which 
remain symbols without phonetic value, although using signs usually 
devoted to representation of sounds).


I hope this helps. However, we are convinced that a thorough revision 
of classes E34 and d E37 is absolutely necessary. Could this be a 
topic of discussion at the next SIG?


Bests,
Achille


Il giorno 20 gen 2020, alle ore 00:31, Ethan Gruber 
mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:


A short text on a physical object is always an inscription. Whether 
or not it's a mark (according to the current definition in the 
ontology) probably depends on a greater level of specialized knowledge.


On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:04 PM Robert Sanderson <mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:


From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s
on a physical object … how can I know when that should be a
Mark+Linguistic Object, or when it is an Inscription?

Rob

*From: *Crm-sig mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Martin Doerr
mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
*Date: *Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM
*To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>"
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

I understand the following:

This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the
marks that are not inscriptions.

This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that
Inscriptions are also Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply
that there may be other Linguistic Objects among the Marks.

It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor
make such statements in the CRM.

I also do not see a particular utility in this statement.

All other rules A-D provided by Robert  appear to be correct.

Best,

Martin

On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:

E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object

|   /

E34 Inscription

​​E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic
Objects

The sentence is difficult to understand.  I try.

Pr defintion:

All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34)
Inscriptions are (instances of E33) Linguistic Objects.

The only difference between E34 Inscription and E37 Mark is
that E34 is a restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are
 instances of  E33 Lingustic Object that is has a language. 
Most sequences of letters and signs do not have a language.

C-E

*From:*Crm-sig 
<mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin
Doerr  <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
    *Sent:* 18 January 2020 13:59
*To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should
not be regarded Linguistic Objects. They do not have a
particular language, translation etc. No need to make them
linguistic objects.

Best,

Martin

On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:

Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice,
could it be solved by double instantiation?

All the best,

Øyvind

Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber
mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>:

I agree with your assertion of D: that not all
inscriptions are marks.

I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a
letter or combination of letters. Have you ever
noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a
mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC"
characters on a Roman coin correspond to the
authority of the Senate. These are obviously
 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Achille Felicetti]

ecialized knowledge.
> 
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:04 PM Robert Sanderson  <mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:
>  
> 
> From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s on a physical 
> object … how can I know when that should be a Mark+Linguistic Object, or when 
> it is an Inscription?
> 
>  
> 
> Rob
> 
>  
> 
> From: Crm-sig  <mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Martin Doerr 
> mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
> Date: Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM
> To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>" 
> mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
> 
>  
> 
> I understand the following:
> 
>  
> 
> This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that are 
> not inscriptions.
> 
>  
> 
> This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are also 
> Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other 
> Linguistic Objects among the Marks.
> 
>  
> 
> It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor make such 
> statements in the CRM.
> 
>  
> 
> I also do not see a particular utility in this statement.
> 
>  
> 
> All other rules A-D provided by Robert  appear to be correct.
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
>  
> 
> Martin
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> 
> E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object
> 
>  |   /
> 
> E34 Inscription
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ​​E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
> 
>  
> 
> The sentence is difficult to understand.  I try.
> 
> Pr defintion:
> 
> All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions are 
> (instances of E33) Linguistic Objects.
> 
> The only difference between E34 Inscription and  E37 Mark is that E34 is a 
> restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are  instances of  E33 Lingustic 
> Object that is has a language.  Most sequences of letters and signs do not 
> have a language. 
> 
>  
> 
> C-E 
> 
>  
> 
> From: Crm-sig  
> <mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr 
>  <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
> Sent: 18 January 2020 13:59
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
> 
>  
> 
> I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be regarded 
> Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, translation etc. 
> No need to make them linguistic objects.
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
>  
> 
> Martin
> 
>  
> 
> On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
>  
> 
> Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be solved 
> by double instantiation?
> 
>  
> 
> All the best,
> 
>  
> 
> Øyvind
> 
>  
> 
> Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber  <mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>:
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.
> 
>  
> 
> I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of 
> letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a 
> mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin 
> correspond to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic 
> objects that carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note 
> for E37 Mark.
> 
>  
> 
> Ethan
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson  <mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re 
> discussing:
> 
>  
> 
> A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
> B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
> C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
> D) All Inscriptions are Marks
> E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>  
> 
> I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are accurate.
> 
>  
> 
> For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic 
> content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus 
> either the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be clearer 
> about the nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a subclass of 
> Mark.
> 
>  
> 
> For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope fo

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

​Tje scope note of Mark says

"This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts applied to 
instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing​". According to my (fragementary) 
knowledge of English "applied" in this context will also cover  a text being a 
part of the glazing of a ceramic.  If we by mark restrict the class to physical 
changes in the overall surface like a relief, it should be stated. Also is a 
mark made by a stamp on wet clay before it is baked, a mark or just a part of 
the overall form?  What is human made besides the carved monograms on an 
originally smooth surface 
(https://lokalhistoriewiki.no/wiki/Fil:Monogrammer_Oscar_II_Vilhelm_II_ved_Holmenkollveien.jpg)?


My point is not to start an endless debate about details, we need good 
operational definitions of the three concepts: Linguistic Object, Inscription 
and Mark.

Is a company logo applied to a paper by pen and ink a mark?

Is a greeting on the first blank page of a book given as a gift a mark?

Is a stamped signature in the glazing on a Japanese  vase a mark?

Does the thing it is applied to need to be a Human Made thing (e.g. a rune on 
base rock)?


Most curators will include quite long CVs written on Roman tombstones in the 
collection of Latin inscriptions.

The Gortyn law text is by most considered to be an inscription

According to OED a greeting on the first blank page of a book given as a gift 
is an inscription (here I mix up language and formal definition).


I think the current definitions of the three classes are ok (with the removal 
of "short") The class E37 Mark need to be so general that all texts that are 
considered (by the cultural heritage sector) to be inscriptions are instances 
of E37 Mark.


Mark: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or texts applied to 
instances of E18 Physical Thing​ by arbitrary techniques, for example to  
indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, but also texts found on 
grave monuments.

Best,
Christian-Emil








From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Ethan Gruber 

Sent: 20 January 2020 00:31
To: Robert Sanderson
Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

A short text on a physical object is always an inscription. Whether or not it's 
a mark (according to the current definition in the ontology) probably depends 
on a greater level of specialized knowledge.

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:04 PM Robert Sanderson 
mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:

From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s on a physical 
object … how can I know when that should be a Mark+Linguistic Object, or when 
it is an Inscription?

Rob

From: Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf 
of Martin Doerr mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
Date: Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>" 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

I understand the following:

This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that are 
not inscriptions.

This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are also 
Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other Linguistic 
Objects among the Marks.

It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor make such 
statements in the CRM.

I also do not see a particular utility in this statement.

All other rules A-D provided by Robert  appear to be correct.

Best,

Martin



On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:

E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object

 |   /

E34 Inscription



​​E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects

The sentence is difficult to understand.  I try.
Pr defintion:
All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions are 
(instances of E33) Linguistic Objects.
The only difference between E34 Inscription and  E37 Mark is that E34 is a 
restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are  instances of  E33 Lingustic 
Object that is has a language.  Most sequences of letters and signs do not have 
a language.

C-E

From: Crm-sig 
<mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf 
of Martin Doerr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Sent: 18 January 2020 13:59
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be regarded 
Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, translation etc. No 
need to make them linguistic objects.

Best,

Martin

On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be solved by 
double instantiation?

All the best,

Øyvind

Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber 
mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Ethan Gruber]

A short text on a physical object is always an inscription. Whether or not
it's a mark (according to the current definition in the ontology) probably
depends on a greater level of specialized knowledge.

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:04 PM Robert Sanderson  wrote:

>
>
> From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s on a
> physical object … how can I know when that should be a Mark+Linguistic
> Object, or when it is an Inscription?
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> *From: *Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr <
> mar...@ics.forth.gr>
> *Date: *Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM
> *To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>
>
>
> I understand the following:
>
>
>
> This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that
> are not inscriptions.
>
>
>
> This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are
> also Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other
> Linguistic Objects among the Marks.
>
>
>
> It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor make such
> statements in the CRM.
>
>
>
> I also do not see a particular utility in this statement.
>
>
>
> All other rules A-D provided by Robert  appear to be correct.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>
> E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object
>
>  |   /
>
> E34 Inscription
>
>
>
>
>
> ​​E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>
>
>
> The sentence is difficult to understand.  I try.
>
> Pr defintion:
>
> All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions are
> (instances of E33) Linguistic Objects.
>
> The only difference between E34 Inscription and  E37 Mark is that E34 is a
> restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are  instances of  E33
> Lingustic Object that is has a language.  Most sequences of letters and
> signs do not have a language.
>
>
>
> C-E
>
>
>
> *From:* Crm-sig 
>  on behalf of Martin Doerr
>  
> *Sent:* 18 January 2020 13:59
> *To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>
>
>
> I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be
> regarded Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language,
> translation etc. No need to make them linguistic objects.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be
> solved by double instantiation?
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Øyvind
>
>
>
> Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber :
>
>
>
> I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.
>
>
>
> I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of
> letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a
> mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin
> correspond to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic
> objects that carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note
> for E37 Mark.
>
>
>
> Ethan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re
> discussing:
>
>
>
>- A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
>- B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
>- C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>- D) All Inscriptions are Marks
>- E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>
>
>
> I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are
> accurate.
>
>
>
> For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic
> content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus
> either the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be
> clearer about the nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a
> subclass of Mark.
>
>
>
> For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the
> Mark class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as
> short text implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think
> that the scope note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this
> issue. Marks should be explicitly NOT text and o

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Robert Sanderson]

From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s on a physical 
object … how can I know when that should be a Mark+Linguistic Object, or when 
it is an Inscription?

Rob

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Date: Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

I understand the following:

This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that are 
not inscriptions.

This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are also 
Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other Linguistic 
Objects among the Marks.

It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor make such 
statements in the CRM.

I also do not see a particular utility in this statement.

All other rules A-D provided by Robert  appear to be correct.

Best,

Martin



On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:

E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object

 |   /

E34 Inscription



​​E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects

The sentence is difficult to understand.  I try.
Pr defintion:
All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions are 
(instances of E33) Linguistic Objects.
The only difference between E34 Inscription and  E37 Mark is that E34 is a 
restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are  instances of  E33 Lingustic 
Object that is has a language.  Most sequences of letters and signs do not have 
a language.

C-E

From: Crm-sig 
<mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf 
of Martin Doerr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Sent: 18 January 2020 13:59
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be regarded 
Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, translation etc. No 
need to make them linguistic objects.

Best,

Martin

On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be solved by 
double instantiation?

All the best,

Øyvind

Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber 
mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>:

I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.

I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of 
letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a mint 
mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin correspond 
to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic objects that 
carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark.

Ethan

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson 
mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:

I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re 
discussing:


  *   A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
  *   B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
  *   C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
  *   D) All Inscriptions are Marks
  *   E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects

I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are accurate.

For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic 
content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus either 
the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be clearer about the 
nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a subclass of Mark.

For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the Mark 
class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as short text 
implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think that the scope 
note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this issue. Marks should 
be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there is a linguistic 
interpretation of the content, then they should instead be Inscriptions.

Hope that clarifies!

Rob

From: Martin Doerr mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
To: Robert Sanderson mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>>, 
crm-sig mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

Dear Robert,

Yes, that is a good question!
For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.

Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a Linguistic 
Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.
But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.

However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not separated 
out as complement, because following all the discussions we had in the past, 
there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished from inscriptions.

So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider sense, 
which are not the codified mo

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Daria,

Yes, there is a point about that.

Han characters are used in China, Japan, Korea. Very complex relations 
between meaning and phonetics. They do not form propositions.  Very 
different Chinese "dialects" agree on the same written form. The 
non-smoking sign is a proposition.


Do they belong to a language, or makes using them for a message 
following a language a linguistic object?


Clearly, only these languages can be encoded with Han characters. Japan 
and Korea using a hybrid system, adding phonetic characters.


But I'd suggest to make clear the distinction of a Propositional Object, 
its constituents, and language.


Best,

Martin



On 1/19/2020 3:04 PM, Дарья Юрьевна Гук wrote:

Dear colleagues,
any sighes having meaning are Linguistic Objects, not only 
alphabetical but Egyptian too, cuneiform and even knots.


With kind regards,
Daria Hookk

Senior Researcher of
the dept. of archaeology of
Eastern Europe and Siberia of
the State Hermitage Museum,
PhD, ICOMOS member

E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru 
Skype: daria.hookk
https://hermitage.academia.edu/HookkDaria 



--

 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

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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Ethan Gruber]

I disagree with changing scope note of Mark (removing indication of
authority, purpose, etc.) because this fundamentally changes the semantic
meaning of Mark, rendering my entire use case obsolete.

The only real point of contention in my mind is whether Inscription is a
subclass of Mark. It can be in some circumstances, but not in others. But I
do think that an Inscription is universally a Linguistic Object. So I would
suggest removing the Mark superclass from Inscription in the ontology
itself. This still allows individual users to assign both the Mark and
Inscription classes to objects within their own data.

Ethan


On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 8:36 AM Martin Doerr  wrote:

> Dear Christian-Emi, all,
>
> The answer to the crying smily (German roots "greinen" and "grinsen" are
> still distinguished) should be given by the epigraphy experts. What
> matters, is their good practice, if it is not conflicting with other
> disciplinary practices and basic ontological principles. I suggest
> Francesca and Achille to give us more insight. They are preparing the
> respective CRM extension for epigraphy, and we need a good interface to it.
> If necessary, we redesign these classes to their needs.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 1/19/2020 9:40 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>
> ​I see your point, I have no problem with that and I have no intention to
> suggest that such a requirement should be added to some of the scopenotes.
> It is a meta interpretation of the model based on the scope notes not a
> part of the model as such.  if the part of a vusual sound track is depicted
> on a surface, then it may represent a linguistic object without being
> considered as atext
>
>
> The inscription class itself depends on  how one defines 'text' (not
> easy) and with or without interpretation  'Ikke grin!' in Danish means
> 'Don't smile!' In Norwegian 'Don'cry!'. An engraving 'Ikke grin!​' is it
> one inscription, two inscrptions or no inscription (Mark) and simply a
> human made physical feature?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Christian-Emil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 
>  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
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Christian-Emi, all,

The answer to the crying smily (German roots "greinen" and "grinsen" are 
still distinguished) should be given by the epigraphy experts. What 
matters, is their good practice, if it is not conflicting with other 
disciplinary practices and basic ontological principles. I suggest 
Francesca and Achille to give us more insight. They are preparing the 
respective CRM extension for epigraphy, and we need a good interface to 
it. If necessary, we redesign these classes to their needs.


Best,

Martin

On 1/19/2020 9:40 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:


​I see your point, I have no problem with that and I have no intention 
to suggest that such a requirement should be added to some of the 
scopenotes. It is a meta interpretation of the model based on the 
scope notes not a part of the model as such.  if the part of a vusual 
sound track is depicted on a surface, then it may represent a 
linguistic object without being considered as atext



The inscription class itself depends on  how one defines 'text' (not 
easy) and with or without interpretation  'Ikke grin!' in Danish means 
'Don't smile!' In Norwegian 'Don'cry!'. An engraving 'Ikke grin!​' is 
it one inscription, two inscrptions or no inscription (Mark) and 
simply a human made physical feature?



Best,

Christian-Emil








--

 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

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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Дарья Юрьевна Гук]

Dear colleagues,
any sighes having meaning are Linguistic Objects, not only alphabetical but 
Egyptian too, cuneiform and even knots.

With kind regards,
Daria Hookk

Senior Researcher of
the dept. of archaeology of
Eastern Europe and Siberia of 
the State Hermitage Museum,
PhD, ICOMOS member

E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru
Skype: daria.hookk
https://hermitage.academia.edu/HookkDaria___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

​I see your point, I have no problem with that and I have no intention to 
suggest that such a requirement should be added to some of the scopenotes. It 
is a meta interpretation of the model based on the scope notes not a part of 
the model as such.  if the part of a vusual sound track is depicted on a 
surface, then it may represent a linguistic object without being considered as 
atext


The inscription class itself depends on  how one defines 'text' (not easy) and 
with or without interpretation  'Ikke grin!' in Danish means 'Don't smile!' In 
Norwegian 'Don'cry!'. An engraving 'Ikke grin!​' is it one inscription, two 
inscrptions or no inscription (Mark) and simply a human made physical feature?


Best,

Christian-Emil







Expressions in formal languages, such as computer code or mathematical 
formulae, are not treated as instances of E33 Linguistic Object by the CIDOC 
CRM.

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Sent: 18 January 2020 21:28
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

I understand the following:

This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that are 
not inscriptions.

This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are also 
Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other Linguistic 
Objects among the Marks.

It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor make such 
statements in the CRM.

I also do not see a particular utility in this statement.

All other rules A-D provided by Robert  appear to be correct.

Best,

Martin



On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:

E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object

 |   /

E34 Inscription


​​E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects

The sentence is difficult to understand.  I try.
Pr defintion:
All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions are 
(instances of E33) Linguistic Objects.
The only difference between E34 Inscription and  E37 Mark is that E34 is a 
restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are  instances of  E33 Lingustic 
Object that is has a language.  Most sequences of letters and signs do not have 
a language.

C-E


From: Crm-sig 
<mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf 
of Martin Doerr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Sent: 18 January 2020 13:59
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be regarded 
Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, translation etc. No 
need to make them linguistic objects.

Best,

Martin

On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be solved by 
double instantiation?

All the best,

Øyvind

Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber 
mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>:

I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.

I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of 
letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a mint 
mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin correspond 
to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic objects that 
carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark.

Ethan

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson 
mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:

I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re 
discussing:


  *   A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
  *   B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
  *   C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
  *   D) All Inscriptions are Marks
  *   E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects

I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are accurate.

For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic 
content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus either 
the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be clearer about the 
nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a subclass of Mark.

For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the Mark 
class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as short text 
implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think that the scope 
note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this issue. Marks should 
be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there is a linguistic 
interpretation of the content, then they should instead be Inscriptions.

Hope that clarifies!

Rob

From: Martin Doerr mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
To: Robert Sanderson mailto:rsander...@ge

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Martin Doerr]

I understand the following:

This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that 
are not inscriptions.


This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are 
also Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other 
Linguistic Objects among the Marks.


It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor make 
such statements in the CRM.


I also do not see a particular utility in this statement.

All other rules A-D provided by Robert appear to be correct.

Best,

Martin



On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:


E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object

 |   /

E34 Inscription


*
*
​​E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
*
*
The sentence is difficult to understand.  I try.
Pr defintion:
All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions 
are (instances of E33) Linguistic Objects.
The only difference between E34 Inscription and  E37 Mark is that E34 
is a restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are  instances of  
E33 Lingustic Object that is has a language.  Most sequences of 
letters and signs do not have a language.


C-E


*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr 

*Sent:* 18 January 2020 13:59
*To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be 
regarded Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, 
translation etc. No need to make them linguistic objects.


Best,

Martin

On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:

Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be 
solved by double instantiation?


All the best,

Øyvind

Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber <mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>:


I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.

I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or 
combination of letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an 
American coin? It's a mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" 
characters on a Roman coin correspond to the authority of the 
Senate. These are obviously linguistic objects that carry a narrower 
semantic meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark.


Ethan

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson 
mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:


I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that
we’re discussing:

  * A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
  * B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
  * C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
  * D) All Inscriptions are Marks
  * E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic
Objects

I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above
are accurate.

For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the
symbolic content is not related to the intents given in the
scope note, and thus either the scope note should be changed to
remove the intents and be clearer about the nature of the class,
or Inscription should not be a subclass of Mark.

For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the
scope for the Mark class, then there must be some Marks that are
Linguistic Objects as short text implies that the symbols encode
some natural language. I think that the scope note should be
changed to remove “short text” to avoid this issue. Marks should
be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there is a
linguistic interpretation of the content, then they should
instead be Inscriptions.

Hope that clarifies!

Rob

*From: *Martin Doerr mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
*Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
*To: *Robert Sanderson mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>>, crm-sig mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

Dear Robert,

Yes, that is a good question!

For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.

Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a
Linguistic Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.

But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.

However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are
not separated out as complement, because following all the
discussions we had in the past, there are enough marks cannot be
clearly distinguished from inscriptions.

So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this
wider sense, which are not the codified monograms etc.

isn't it?

best,

martin

On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

Dear all,

I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but
would propose also that there should be clarification about
the inclusion of “short t

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object

 |   /

E34 Inscription


​​E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects

The sentence is difficult to understand.  I try.
Pr defintion:
All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions are 
(instances of E33) Linguistic Objects.
The only difference between E34 Inscription and  E37 Mark is that E34 is a 
restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are  instances of  E33 Lingustic 
Object that is has a language.  Most sequences of letters and signs do not have 
a language.

C-E


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Sent: 18 January 2020 13:59
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be regarded 
Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, translation etc. No 
need to make them linguistic objects.

Best,

Martin

On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be solved by 
double instantiation?

All the best,

Øyvind

Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber 
mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>:

I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.

I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of 
letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a mint 
mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin correspond 
to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic objects that 
carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark.

Ethan

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson 
mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:

I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re 
discussing:


  *   A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
  *   B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
  *   C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
  *   D) All Inscriptions are Marks
  *   E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects

I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are accurate.

For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic 
content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus either 
the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be clearer about the 
nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a subclass of Mark.

For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the Mark 
class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as short text 
implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think that the scope 
note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this issue. Marks should 
be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there is a linguistic 
interpretation of the content, then they should instead be Inscriptions.

Hope that clarifies!

Rob

From: Martin Doerr mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
To: Robert Sanderson mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>>, 
crm-sig mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

Dear Robert,

Yes, that is a good question!
For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.

Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a Linguistic 
Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.
But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.

However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not separated 
out as complement, because following all the discussions we had in the past, 
there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished from inscriptions.

So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider sense, 
which are not the codified monograms etc.

isn't it?

best,

martin



On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

Dear all,

I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose also 
that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short texts” in a 
class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It seems strange to me that 
Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when that is clearly text with a 
language. That would, IMO, need to be E37 Inscription if we wanted to talk 
about the content / meaning, rather than just the visual appearance of some 
symbols. Yet the scope note for Mark makes assertions about the intent, which 
implies a semantic understanding of the language encoded by the symbols.

Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all 
inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate the 
creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc.  Either the  “etc” covers all intents 
(at which point it is a worthless clause) or there are some texts that are 
inscribed on objects that do not count as inscriptions.
On

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Christian-Emil,

I agree with that. I prefer to be more verbose and add:

"often in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose or 
public announcement",


But I would not insist on that.

Best wishes and hope you are well!

martin

On 1/18/2020 2:43 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:


Dear all,

The discussion is interesting, I have been down with a cold and have 
not been able to comment earlier. Martin is right that this corner of 
CRM has not been much discussed the last 15 years. The inheritance 
hierarchy is


E73 Information Object

    | \

E36 Visual Item    \

 |    \

E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object

 |   /

E34 Inscription

I start at the bottom  with E34 Inscription.  Although the class name 
should be considered a sign without semantic content, I found the OED 
definition quite clarifying:


“ Inscription… 2. concrete. That which is inscribed; a piece of 
writing or lettering upon something; a set of characters or words 
written, engraved, or otherwise traced upon a surface; esp. a legend, 
description, or record traced upon some hard substance for the sake of 
durability, as on a monument, building, stone, tablet, medal, coin, 
vase, etc.”


So an inscription is a linguistic object applied to (traced upon) 
something. This is the essence of the E34 Inscription except that 
being a subclass of E73 restructed to E36 Visual Item it is the 
abstract content and the abstract form/visual appearance and not the 
physical thing. An inscription need not to be short, e.g. the 
inscription of the law text found at Gortyn at southern Crete 
comprising about 640 lines of text. So the word ‘short’ should be 
deleted in the scope note of E37 Mark.


The class name “Mark” of E37 is clearly without semantic content since 
the word has long series of different meanings.


Comments to the new scope note:

The phrase “This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short 
texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by 
arbitrary techniques”  is fine and make all inscriptions instances of 
E37 Mark.



The extra explanation/specification “in order to indicate the creator, 
owner, dedications, purpose, etc.” is too restrictive. A short 
description of a person’s life found on a Roman tomb stone or at a 
baroque epitaph or the law text from Gortyn are not created “in order 
to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose”, may be in order 
to “etc.” In my view the phrase should be deleted and can be restated 
via examples.



The phrase “Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the actual image of 
a mark, but the abstract ideal” follows from the fact that E37 Mark is 
a subclass of E36 Visual Item and is not needed. May be a reformulation?


The new scope note can be

"This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or texts applied to 
instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by arbitrary techniques. 
E37 Mark is a subclass of E36 Visual Item and thus Instances of E37 
Mark do not represent the actual image of a mark, but an abstract 
ideal, as they use to be codified in reference documents that are used 
in cultural documentation. This class specifically excludes features 
that have no semantic significance, such as scratches or tool marks. 
These should be documented as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature."


To the A-E discussion

A and B, all marks and linguistic objects are instances of  E73 
Information Object


C, D, E  yes to all.

Best,

Christian-Emil​



*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Øyvind 
Eide 

*Sent:* 18 January 2020 12:53
*To:* Ethan Gruber
*Cc:* crm-sig
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be 
solved by double instantiation?


All the best,

Øyvind

Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber <mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>:


I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.

I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or 
combination of letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an 
American coin? It's a mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" 
characters on a Roman coin correspond to the authority of the Senate. 
These are obviously linguistic objects that carry a narrower semantic 
meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark.


Ethan

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson 
mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:


I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that
we’re discussing:

  * A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
  * B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
  * C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
  * D) All Inscriptions are Marks
  * E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions a

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Martin Doerr]

I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be 
regarded Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, 
translation etc. No need to make them linguistic objects.


Best,

Martin

On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:

Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be 
solved by double instantiation?


All the best,

Øyvind

Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber <mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>:


I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.

I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or 
combination of letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an 
American coin? It's a mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" 
characters on a Roman coin correspond to the authority of the Senate. 
These are obviously linguistic objects that carry a narrower semantic 
meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark.


Ethan

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson 
mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:


I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that
we’re discussing:

  * A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
  * B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
  * C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
  * D) All Inscriptions are Marks
  * E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic
Objects

I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above
are accurate.

For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the
symbolic content is not related to the intents given in the scope
note, and thus either the scope note should be changed to remove
the intents and be clearer about the nature of the class, or
Inscription should not be a subclass of Mark.

For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the
scope for the Mark class, then there must be some Marks that are
Linguistic Objects as short text implies that the symbols encode
some natural language. I think that the scope note should be
changed to remove “short text” to avoid this issue. Marks should
be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there is a
linguistic interpretation of the content, then they should
instead be Inscriptions.

Hope that clarifies!

Rob

*From: *Martin Doerr mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
*Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
*To: *Robert Sanderson mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>>, crm-sig mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

Dear Robert,

Yes, that is a good question!

For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.

Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a
Linguistic Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.

But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.

However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are
not separated out as complement, because following all the
discussions we had in the past, there are enough marks cannot be
clearly distinguished from inscriptions.

So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this
wider sense, which are not the codified monograms etc.

isn't it?

best,

martin

On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

Dear all,

I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but
would propose also that there should be clarification about
the inclusion of “short texts” in a class that does not
inherit from Linguistic Object. It seems strange to me that
Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when that is clearly
text with a language. That would, IMO, need to be E37
Inscription if we wanted to talk about the content / meaning,
rather than just the visual appearance of some symbols. Yet
the scope note for Mark makes assertions about the intent,
which implies a semantic understanding of the language
encoded by the symbols.

Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means
that all inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all
inscriptions are to indicate the creator, owner, dedications,
purpose etc.  Either the “etc” covers all intents (at which
point it is a worthless clause) or there are some texts that
are inscribed on objects that do not count as inscriptions.

One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” …
that does not seem to fall under the definition of Mark,
given the intent clause. Similarly the “Keep off the grass”
sign example is to instruct the students of Balliol to not
walk on the lawn. That seems very different from a Mark … yet
it is one?

Finally, I think there is a minor typo in the new sentence. I
think it 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

Dear all,

The discussion is interesting, I have been down with a cold and have not been 
able to comment earlier. Martin is right that this corner of CRM has not been 
much discussed the last 15 years.  The inheritance hierarchy is

E73 Information Object

| \

E36 Visual Item\

 |\

E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object

 |   /

E34 Inscription



I start at the bottom  with E34 Inscription.  Although the class name should be 
considered a sign without semantic content, I found the OED definition quite 
clarifying:

“ Inscription… 2. concrete. That which is inscribed; a piece of writing or 
lettering upon something; a set of characters or words written, engraved, or 
otherwise traced upon a surface; esp. a legend, description, or record traced 
upon some hard substance for the sake of durability, as on a monument, 
building, stone, tablet, medal, coin, vase, etc.”

So an inscription is a linguistic object applied to (traced upon) something. 
This is the essence of the E34 Inscription except that being a subclass of E73 
restructed to E36 Visual Item it is the abstract content and the abstract 
form/visual appearance and not the physical thing. An inscription need not to 
be short, e.g. the inscription of the law text found at Gortyn at southern 
Crete comprising about 640 lines of text. So the word ‘short’ should be deleted 
in the scope note of E37 Mark.

The class name “Mark” of E37 is clearly without semantic content since the word 
has long series of different meanings.

Comments to the new scope note:

The phrase “This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts 
applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by arbitrary techniques”  
is fine and make all inscriptions instances of E37 Mark.


The extra explanation/specification “in order to indicate the creator, owner, 
dedications, purpose, etc.” is too restrictive. A short description of a 
person’s life found on a Roman tomb stone or at a baroque epitaph or the law 
text from Gortyn are not created “in order to indicate the creator, owner, 
dedications, purpose”, may be in order to “etc.” In my view the phrase should 
be deleted and can be restated via examples.


The phrase “Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the actual image of a mark, 
but the abstract ideal” follows from the fact that E37 Mark is a subclass of 
E36 Visual Item and is not needed. May be a reformulation?



The new scope note can be

"This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or texts applied to instances 
of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by arbitrary techniques. E37 Mark is a 
subclass of E36 Visual Item and thus Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the 
actual image of a mark, but an abstract ideal, as they use to be codified in 
reference documents that are used in cultural documentation. This class 
specifically excludes features that have no semantic significance, such as 
scratches or tool marks. These should be documented as instances of E25 
Human-Made Feature."



To the A-E discussion

A and B, all marks and linguistic objects are instances of  E73 Information 
Object

C, D, E  yes to all.





Best,

Christian-Emil​



From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Øyvind Eide 

Sent: 18 January 2020 12:53
To: Ethan Gruber
Cc: crm-sig
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be solved by 
double instantiation?

All the best,

Øyvind

Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber 
mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>:

I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.

I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of 
letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a mint 
mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin correspond 
to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic objects that 
carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark.

Ethan

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson 
mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:

I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re 
discussing:


  *   A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
  *   B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
  *   C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
  *   D) All Inscriptions are Marks
  *   E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects

I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are accurate.

For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic 
content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus either 
the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be clearer about the 
nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a subclas

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be solved by 
double instantiation?

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber :
> 
> I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.
> 
> I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of 
> letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a 
> mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin 
> correspond to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic 
> objects that carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note 
> for E37 Mark.
> 
> Ethan
> 
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson  <mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:
>  
> 
> I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re 
> discussing:
> 
>  
> 
> A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
> B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
> C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
> D) All Inscriptions are Marks
> E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>  
> 
> I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are accurate.
> 
>  
> 
> For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic 
> content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus 
> either the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be clearer 
> about the nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a subclass of 
> Mark.
> 
>  
> 
> For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the 
> Mark class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as 
> short text implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think 
> that the scope note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this 
> issue. Marks should be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there is 
> a linguistic interpretation of the content, then they should instead be 
> Inscriptions.
> 
>  
> 
> Hope that clarifies!
> 
>  
> 
> Rob
> 
>  
> 
> From: Martin Doerr mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
> Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
> To: Robert Sanderson mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>>, 
> crm-sig mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Robert,
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, that is a good question!
> 
> For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.
> 
>  
> 
> Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a Linguistic 
> Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.
> 
> But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.
> 
>  
> 
> However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not separated 
> out as complement, because following all the discussions we had in the past, 
> there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished from inscriptions.
> 
>  
> 
> So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider sense, 
> which are not the codified monograms etc.
> 
>  
> 
> isn't it?
> 
>  
> 
> best,
> 
>  
> 
> martin
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose also 
> that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short texts” in a 
> class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It seems strange to me 
> that Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when that is clearly text with 
> a language. That would, IMO, need to be E37 Inscription if we wanted to talk 
> about the content / meaning, rather than just the visual appearance of some 
> symbols. Yet the scope note for Mark makes assertions about the intent, which 
> implies a semantic understanding of the language encoded by the symbols.
> 
>  
> 
> Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all 
> inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate the 
> creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc.  Either the  “etc” covers all 
> intents (at which point it is a worthless clause) or there are some texts 
> that are inscribed on objects that do not count as inscriptions.
> 
> One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” … that does not seem 
> to fall under the definition of Mark, given the intent clause. Similarly the 
> “Keep off the grass” sign example is to instruct the students of Balliol to 
> not walk on the lawn. That seems very different from a Mark … yet it is one?

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Martin Doerr]

On 1/17/2020 7:39 PM, Дарья Юрьевна Гук wrote:

Dear all,
about signes or symbols.
I have good example but for the moment difficult to propose some book 
in English. I continue to search.

http://www.kroraina.com/alan/olhovskij.html#4

With kind regards,
Daria Hookk

Senior Researcher of
the dept. of archaeology of
Eastern Europe and Siberia of
the State Hermitage Museum,
PhD, ICOMOS member

E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru 
Skype: daria.hookk
https://hermitage.academia.edu/HookkDaria 

Dear Daria,
From this site may be we could use fig.5 :

Ossetian tamga Nr. 26 (after Jahtanigov H., 1993)

or fig.9:

Symbol-tamga Nr.2, Tiberius Julius Eupatoros (Fig. 9) (after Solomonik, 
E., 1959)


best,

Martin

--

 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

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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Ethan Gruber]

I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.

I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of
letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a
mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin
correspond to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic
objects that carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note
for E37 Mark.

Ethan

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson 
wrote:

>
>
> I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re
> discussing:
>
>
>
>- A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
>- B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
>- C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>- D) All Inscriptions are Marks
>- E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>
>
>
> I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are
> accurate.
>
>
>
> For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic
> content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus
> either the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be
> clearer about the nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a
> subclass of Mark.
>
>
>
> For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the
> Mark class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as
> short text implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think
> that the scope note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this
> issue. Marks should be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there
> is a linguistic interpretation of the content, then they should instead be
> Inscriptions.
>
>
>
> Hope that clarifies!
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> *From: *Martin Doerr 
> *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
> *To: *Robert Sanderson , crm-sig <
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>
>
>
> Dear Robert,
>
>
>
> Yes, that is a good question!
>
> For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.
>
>
>
> Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a Linguistic
> Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.
>
> But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.
>
>
>
> However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not
> separated out as complement, because following all the discussions we had
> in the past, there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished from
> inscriptions.
>
>
>
> So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider sense,
> which are not the codified monograms etc.
>
>
>
> isn't it?
>
>
>
> best,
>
>
>
> martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose
> also that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short
> texts” in a class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It seems
> strange to me that Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when that is
> clearly text with a language. That would, IMO, need to be E37 Inscription
> if we wanted to talk about the content / meaning, rather than just the
> visual appearance of some symbols. Yet the scope note for Mark makes
> assertions about the intent, which implies a semantic understanding of the
> language encoded by the symbols.
>
>
>
> Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all
> inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate the
> creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc.  Either the  “etc” covers all
> intents (at which point it is a worthless clause) or there are some texts
> that are inscribed on objects that do not count as inscriptions.
>
> One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” … that does not
> seem to fall under the definition of Mark, given the intent clause.
> Similarly the “Keep off the grass” sign example is to instruct the students
> of Balliol to not walk on the lawn. That seems very different from a Mark …
> yet it is one?
>
>
>
> Finally, I think there is a minor typo in the new sentence. I think it
> should read:  … as they are used to codify the marks in reference documents
> …
>
> (or something like that)
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Crm-sig 
>  on behalf of Martin Doerr
>  
> *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM
> *To: *crm-sig  
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Robert Sanderson]

I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re 
discussing:


  *   A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
  *   B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
  *   C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
  *   D) All Inscriptions are Marks
  *   E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects

I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are accurate.

For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic 
content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus either 
the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be clearer about the 
nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a subclass of Mark.

For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the Mark 
class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as short text 
implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think that the scope 
note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this issue. Marks should 
be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there is a linguistic 
interpretation of the content, then they should instead be Inscriptions.

Hope that clarifies!

Rob

From: Martin Doerr 
Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
To: Robert Sanderson , crm-sig 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

Dear Robert,

Yes, that is a good question!
For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.

Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a Linguistic 
Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.
But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.

However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not separated 
out as complement, because following all the discussions we had in the past, 
there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished from inscriptions.

So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider sense, 
which are not the codified monograms etc.

isn't it?

best,

martin



On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

Dear all,

I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose also 
that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short texts” in a 
class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It seems strange to me that 
Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when that is clearly text with a 
language. That would, IMO, need to be E37 Inscription if we wanted to talk 
about the content / meaning, rather than just the visual appearance of some 
symbols. Yet the scope note for Mark makes assertions about the intent, which 
implies a semantic understanding of the language encoded by the symbols.

Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all 
inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate the 
creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc.  Either the  “etc” covers all intents 
(at which point it is a worthless clause) or there are some texts that are 
inscribed on objects that do not count as inscriptions.
One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” … that does not seem 
to fall under the definition of Mark, given the intent clause. Similarly the 
“Keep off the grass” sign example is to instruct the students of Balliol to not 
walk on the lawn. That seems very different from a Mark … yet it is one?

Finally, I think there is a minor typo in the new sentence. I think it should 
read:  … as they are used to codify the marks in reference documents …
(or something like that)

Many thanks,

Rob


From: Crm-sig 
<mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf 
of Martin Doerr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM
To: crm-sig <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark


Dear All,

There were questions about the level of abstraction of E37 Mark. Therefore I 
rewrite, following the relevant discussions when this class was defined. The 
argument was that it should directly link to the codes that are used in museum 
documentation for (registered) marks.

Old scope note:
Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short 
texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by arbitrary 
techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, etc.
 This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic significance, 
such as scratches or tool marks. These should be documented as instances of E25 
Human-Made Feature.
NEW
Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short 
texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by arbitrary 
techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, etc. 
Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the actual image of a mark, but the 
abstract ideal, as they use to be codified in reference documents that are used 
in cultural documentation.
 This class specifi

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Robert,

Yes, that is a good question!
For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.

Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a 
Linguistic Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.

But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.

However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not 
separated out as complement, because following all the discussions we 
had in the past, there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished 
from inscriptions.


So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider 
sense, which are not the codified monograms etc.


isn't it?

best,

martin



On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Dear all,

I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose 
also that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short 
texts” in a class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It 
seems strange to me that Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when 
that is clearly text with a language. That would, IMO, need to be E37 
Inscription if we wanted to talk about the content / meaning, rather 
than just the visual appearance of some symbols. Yet the scope note 
for Mark makes assertions about the intent, which implies a semantic 
understanding of the language encoded by the symbols.


Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all 
inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate 
the creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc.  Either the  “etc” 
covers all intents (at which point it is a worthless clause) or there 
are some texts that are inscribed on objects that do not count as 
inscriptions.


One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” … that does 
not seem to fall under the definition of Mark, given the intent 
clause. Similarly the “Keep off the grass” sign example is to instruct 
the students of Balliol to not walk on the lawn. That seems very 
different from a Mark … yet it is one?


Finally, I think there is a minor typo in the new sentence. I think it 
should read:  … as they are used to codify the marks in reference 
documents …


(or something like that)

Many thanks,

Rob

*From: *Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr 

*Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM
*To: *crm-sig 
*Subject: *[Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

Dear All,

There were questions about the level of abstraction of E37 Mark. 
Therefore I rewrite, following the relevant discussions when this 
class was defined. The argument was that it should directly link to 
the codes that are used in museum documentation for (registered) marks.


*Old scope note:*

Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or 
short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by 
arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, 
dedications, purpose, etc.


 This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic 
significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be 
documented as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature.


*NEW*

Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or 
short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by 
arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, 
dedications, purpose, etc. Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the 
actual image of a mark, but the abstract ideal, as they use to be 
codified in reference documents that are used in cultural documentation.


 This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic 
significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be 
documented as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature.


Can someone provide a relevant example from an authority document of 
marks?


Such as

Castagno, John. /Old Masters: Signatures and Monograms, 1400–Born 
1800/. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996.


Caplan, H. H. and Bob Creps. /Encyclopedia of Artists' Signatures, 
Symbols & Monograms: Old Masters to Modern, North American & European 
plus More; 25,000 Examples/. Land O'Lakes, FL: Dealer's Choice Books, 
1999.


--

  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  




*CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know 
the content is safe.*






--

 Dr. Martin Doerr
  
 Honorary Head of the

 Center for Cultural Informatics
 
 Information Systems Laboratory

 Institute of Computer Science
 Foundation for Research and Te

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Ethan Gruber]

Our examples from this particular use case:
http://numismatics.org/pella/symbols and an example of how these are
traditionally printed and referenced in monographs:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ubjkki2bebwvxs8/Seleucid%20Monograms%20Part%201%20%28w%20MP%20numbers%2C%20second%29.pdf?dl=0
(note that we have symbols as well as monograms, which are more linguistic
in origin).

I agree with Rob here about the conflation of Marks and Inscriptions. An
Inscription *can* be a Mark, but I'm not sure I would say that all
Inscriptions are Marks.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:50 PM Дарья Юрьевна Гук 
wrote:

> Dear all,
> about signes or symbols.
> I have good example but for the moment difficult to propose some book in
> English. I continue to search.
> http://www.kroraina.com/alan/olhovskij.html#4
>
> With kind regards,
> Daria Hookk
>
> Senior Researcher of
> the dept. of archaeology of
> Eastern Europe and Siberia of
> the State Hermitage Museum,
> PhD, ICOMOS member
>
> E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru
> Skype: daria.hookk
> https://hermitage.academia.edu/HookkDaria
> ___
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Дарья Юрьевна Гук]

Brixhe, C. 2012. Timbres amphoriques de Pamphylie. Alexandria.
or
Tzochev, C. 2016. Agora XXXVII. Amphora Stamps from Thasos. Princeton.

Daria Hookk

Senior Researcher of
the dept. of archaeology of
Eastern Europe and Siberia of 
the State Hermitage Museum,
PhD, ICOMOS member

E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru
Skype: daria.hookk
https://hermitage.academia.edu/HookkDaria___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Дарья Юрьевна Гук]

Dear all,
about signes or symbols.
I have good example but for the moment difficult to propose some book in 
English. I continue to search.

http://www.kroraina.com/alan/olhovskij.html#4
With kind regards,
Daria Hookk

Senior Researcher of
the dept. of archaeology of
Eastern Europe and Siberia of 
the State Hermitage Museum,
PhD, ICOMOS member

E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru
Skype: daria.hookk
https://hermitage.academia.edu/HookkDaria___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Robert Sanderson]

Dear all,

I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose also 
that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short texts” in a 
class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It seems strange to me that 
Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when that is clearly text with a 
language. That would, IMO, need to be E37 Inscription if we wanted to talk 
about the content / meaning, rather than just the visual appearance of some 
symbols. Yet the scope note for Mark makes assertions about the intent, which 
implies a semantic understanding of the language encoded by the symbols.

Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all 
inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate the 
creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc.  Either the  “etc” covers all intents 
(at which point it is a worthless clause) or there are some texts that are 
inscribed on objects that do not count as inscriptions.
One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” … that does not seem 
to fall under the definition of Mark, given the intent clause. Similarly the 
“Keep off the grass” sign example is to instruct the students of Balliol to not 
walk on the lawn. That seems very different from a Mark … yet it is one?

Finally, I think there is a minor typo in the new sentence. I think it should 
read:  … as they are used to codify the marks in reference documents …
(or something like that)

Many thanks,

Rob


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM
To: crm-sig 
Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark


Dear All,

There were questions about the level of abstraction of E37 Mark. Therefore I 
rewrite, following the relevant discussions when this class was defined. The 
argument was that it should directly link to the codes that are used in museum 
documentation for (registered) marks.

Old scope note:
Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short 
texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by arbitrary 
techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, etc.
 This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic significance, 
such as scratches or tool marks. These should be documented as instances of E25 
Human-Made Feature.
NEW
Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short 
texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by arbitrary 
techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, etc. 
Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the actual image of a mark, but the 
abstract ideal, as they use to be codified in reference documents that are used 
in cultural documentation.
 This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic significance, 
such as scratches or tool marks. These should be documented as instances of E25 
Human-Made Feature.



Can someone provide a relevant example from an authority document of marks?

Such as

Castagno, John. Old Masters: Signatures and Monograms, 1400–Born 1800. Lanham, 
MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996.

Caplan, H. H. and Bob Creps. Encyclopedia of Artists' Signatures, Symbols & 
Monograms: Old Masters to Modern, North American & European plus More; 25,000 
Examples. Land O'Lakes, FL: Dealer's Choice Books, 1999.

--



 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

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not click links or 
open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content is safe.


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