Dear all,
During the last SIG I was asked to reformulate some homework around
splitting samples for CRMsci. This included creating a new class and two
new properties (one of them from the revised homework). Please find this
new homework attached here.
All the best,
Thanasis
Dear all,
In the last meeting I was asked to revise the scope note for O27 split
and provide a more specific example for it. Please consider these:
Old scope note
This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with an
instance of S13 Sample that was removed during this activity.
This is to provide an example from conservation of the use of CRMsci
property Oxx split [D:S2 Sample Taking, R:S13 Sample]:
---
The activity (S2 Sample Taking) of removing fibers from the sample (S13
Sample) of Japanese Kozo hand-made paper [with dimensions
Dear All,
Here my rephrasing.
*Current version:*
S3 Measurement by Sampling
Subclass of: S2 <#_S2_Sample_Taking>Sample Taking
S21 <#_S21_Measurement_%28equivalent>Measurement
Scope note:This class comprises activities of taking a sample and
measuring or analyzing it as one unit of
Dear All,
Here my rework.
Old scope note:
S22 Segment of Matter//
Subclass of: S20 <#_S20_Physical_Feature>Physical Feature
Scope Note:This class comprises physical features in a relative
stability of form within a specific spacetime volume. The spatial extent
of an instance of S22
On 9/20/2017 4:51 PM, van Leusen, P.M. wrote:
Dear Martin and Franco,
here it is perhaps relevant that we (Tymon de Haas and me, working on
the fieldwalking extension to CRMarchaeo) have decided that surface
finds should be regarded as objects contained in a stratigraphical
unit (typically,
On 9/20/2017 5:43 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Dear Franco, Martin,
To make sure I understand your comment, are you pointing out the direction of the
predicate is the opposite to the direction implied by the scope note? The predicate
is that the subject X contains Y (X > Y) whereas the scope
No, no, as any CRM property it is bi-directional. Changing the direction in the
scope note would be useful, but would not have any effect on my comment.
I was only making a joke on the tautological scope note, which explains (ahem)
that the meaning of "O25 contains (is contained)" is exactly
Dear Franco, Martin,
To make sure I understand your comment, are you pointing out the direction of
the predicate is the opposite to the direction implied by the scope note? The
predicate is that the subject X contains Y (X > Y) whereas the scope note
expresses the relationship as the subject
Dear Martin and Franco,
here it is perhaps relevant that we (Tymon de Haas and me, working on the
fieldwalking extension to CRMarchaeo) have decided that surface finds
should be regarded as objects contained in a stratigraphical unit
(typically, the unit 'plough layer'), hence not 'on' the
Dear Franco,
proposals welcome! One way to define it is the overlapping spatial
extent. This comes in conflict with 2D surface features, except if we
regard them not being infinitesimally thin. Another way is to define it
by atoms. This comes again in conflict with 2D features, except if we
it looks very useful, but:
“O25 contains (is contained in)
[...] an instance of S10 Material Substantial was or is contained for some time
in [...]”
Of course: 'X is contained in Y' means that X is contained in Y :-)
Was the scope note proposed by M. de la Palisse?
Apart from that, it’s a
Dear All,
I propose the following property for CRMSci:
O25 contains (is contained in)
Domain:S10 <#_S10_Material_Substantial>**Material Substantial
Range:S10 <#_S10_Material_Substantial>**Material Substantial
Superproperty of:E18 Physical Thing. P46 is composed of (forms part of):
13 matches
Mail list logo
