Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

In which case I suppose the proposal to discuss at the next SIG is: 1) change the range of P112 from E24 Physical Human-Made Thing to E18 Physical Thing 2) fix the reference to the property under the scope note of E80 3) add an example to E80 and a corresponding example to P112 for

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

Dear All, Actually the class was also designed for cutting parts from archaeological objects, natural history stuff etc. We had a long discussion if, in the very instant, a part is broken from a natural object, e.g. for sampling, the diminished becomes "human made". We later ultimately

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

Ahh, thank you, I understand now. Well, the scope notes of the various classes and properties should be improved to make that clear if it's the case. And then we would need to have the discussion about how to remove fragments from meteorites, so I hope that's _not_ the case :D R On Tue, Nov 30,

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

I completely understand the reasoning and I agree that intuitively a tree with a broken branch is a diminished thing. It is just that the scope note and all of the examples in E80 Part Removal are for Human-Made things so I worry that the class has been designed for Human-Made things only,

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

It makes sense for the twig from the branch, but not from the branch from the tree (or stalactite from the cave, fragment for study from a meteorite, etc etc). Removing the branch/fragment from the tree/meteorite results in a Human-Made Object (via the Part Removal / Production), but the

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

Hm, I do not consider it as a value statement, but as indication of the intension. Breaking a tree branch which is worth putting in your collection is a production of a Human-Made Object (as well as a Biological Object). So when you break the twig off the branch, you are removing a part from a

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

Isn't "diminished" just a label, rather than a value statement? I don't think something needs to be complete for a part to be removed (I can break a twig off the branch, which I previously broke off the tree). I read it as "was made smaller by" in that some part was removed. I agree that Part

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

Yes this is a logical position. I guess the way I have been reading it is that the object that is diminished was indeed intentionally made by a human and therefore it *can* be diminished. If it is any thing then who judges if it is complete and has been diminished? There is no agency on its

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

Good spotting! I agree with Thanasis that there is any issue, but I think that the range is wrong for P112, which I would argue should also be E18. For example, I find a tree and break off a branch. The tree is not a Human-Made Thing, it's an E20 Biological Object. Or I break a piece of obsidian

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to update the scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that E80 Part Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off in a cave. Thanasis On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote: Hello, I am

[Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

Hello, I am hoping you might be able to help me with a small confusion - The scope note for E80_Part_Removal states that "This class comprises the activities that result in an instance of E18 Physical Thing being decreased by the