Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 574 HW (was: Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112)

2022-01-29 Thread Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
Yes, this is a fine point and I struggled to find an example for such a case of P111. However there is also this: https://www.demilked.com/bronze-hand-squeezed-trees-sculpture-giuseppe-penone/ which is rare but matches the case? T. On 29/01/2022 17:48, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote: Dear

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 574 HW (was: Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112)

2022-01-29 Thread Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
Dear Thanasi, all, I agree with all, except: 3) Example for E79 augmenting a natural object: the carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph on the Culpa tree (Buhrich et al., 2015) 4) Example for P110 The carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph (E79) augmentedthe Culpa tree (E20). (Buhrich et al., 2015)

[Crm-sig] Issue 574 HW (was: Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112)

2022-01-25 Thread Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
Dear all, It turns out that we might also need to worry about P110. The HW for both is included here to discuss and vote at the next SIG: 1) Change the range of P112 diminished: From: E24 Physical Human-Made Thing To: E18 Physical Thing And update the property scope note from: “This