[crm-sig] Proposed scope notes for Collection, Part Addition and Removal

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Jan 29 18:25:33 EET 2002


In Paris we decided to add to the CRM:

Part Addition
   subclass of: E11 Modification
      added (was added by) :                  E18 Physical Stuff
      added to(was augmented by):        E24 Physical Man-Made Stuff
         (subproperty of "has modified")

Part Removal
  subclass of: E11 Modification
       removed (was removed by):             E18 Physical Stuff
       removed from (was dimished by):    E24 Physical Stuff
         (subproperty of "has modified")

1. Part Addition:

Scope note: This Entity describes the activities by which a unit of Physical Man-Made Stuff is increased by a part.
                  This can be either an accessory or a component, which is more or less permanently attached
                  to or integrated into a Physical Object. It can be an element which is added to an aggregate
                  of items, like a collection of stamps or a heap of sherds. It can be an immobile object which
                  is added to a special collection of immobile objects curated by some organisation, e.g. caves
                  with prehistoric findings. The objects added form afterwards part of a whole clearly identifiable
                  by independent criteria which justify a common lifecycle of all parts of that whole - be it because
                  they are kept together for a certain function, like a set of chessman, be it because they stick
                  physically together like a car, or be it because they are treated, conserved and restaurated together
                  like a collection of caves (*). The object subject to the addition is Man-Made, at least due to the
                  very activity of adding. This Entity is the basis for reasoning on the continuity of history of objects,
                  which are integrated or removed without affecting their internal identity over time, like valuable
                  antique items or bones of saints being repeatedly integrated into precious jewelry or containers, but
                  also museum objects being transferred from collection to collection.

(* I still feel a bit uneasy about the inclusion of immobiles).

2. added (was added by) :                  E18 Physical Stuff

   scope note: This property links the activity of part addition to the unit of Physical Stuff becoming part of the
                     respective whole.

3. added to(was augmented by):        E18 Physical Man-Made Stuff
         (subproperty of "has modified")

   scope note: This property links the activity of part addition to the whole which is augmented by the new part. As
                     the former changes due to this act, this property is a subproperty of "has modified".

4. Part Removal:

Scope note: This Entity describes the activities by which a unit of Physical Stuff is decreased by a part, which may
                  in the sequence be documented with an individual identity or has been documented individually already
                  before. This can be either an accessory or a component, which is more or less permanently detached
                  or removed from a Physical Object. It can be an element which is taken from an aggregate
                  of items, like a collection of stamps or a heap of sherds. It can be an immobile object which
                  is taken out of special collection of immobile objects curated by some organisation, e.g. caves
                  with prehistoric findings. This Entity is the basis for reasoning on the continuity of history of objects,
                  which are integrated or removed without affecting their internal identity over time, like valuable
                  antique items or bones of saints being repeatedly integrated into precious jewelry or containers, but
                  also museum objects being transferred from collection to collection. In case of cutting or breaking
                  out pieces, which had no recognizable identity before the removal, the latter should be regarded as a
                  combination of Part Removal and production.  Cases of complete decomposition of
                  a whole into pieces, such that the whole ceases to exist under the aspect it had been documented,
                  should be modelled as transformation, i.e. a simultaneous destruction and production. Similarly, a
                  dissolution of a collection is a simultaneous part removal and destruction. It does not imply loss of
                  an identifiable part. This should be documented by the Destruction of the respective item.

(* I still feel a bit uneasy about the inclusion of immobiles).

5. removed (was removed by):             E18 Physical Stuff

   scope note: This property links the activity of part removal to the unit of Physical Stuff ceasing to be part of the
                     respective whole.

6. removed from (was dimished by):    E18 Physical Stuff
         (subproperty of "has modified")

   scope note: This property links the activity of part removal to the whole which is diminished by the new part. As
                     the former changes due to this act, this property is a subproperty of "has modified".

7. Collection:

Scope note:
This entity describes an aggregate of items, which is maintained by an Actor following a plan of cultural relevance
over time. Things may be added or taken out of a collection in pursuit of this plan. A collection is designed for a
certain public, and the conservation of the collected items is normally catered for. Collective objects in the general
sense, like a tomb full of gifts, a folder with stamps, a set of chessmen fall naturally under Physical Object and not
under Collection. They form wholes in the sense that they share a common lifecycle, either because they physically
stick together, like the folder or the tomb, or because they are kept together for their functionality, like the chessmen.
Examples for Collection are: The John Clayton Herbarium.

8. is curated by (curates): Actor
    scope note: This property links the Collection to the Actor in charge for maintaining the Collection.

==================================================================================
I was intrigued by the complexity of parts leaving an object. The question, to which degree a part removal without
human activity exists, is not clear to me, if we take out part destruction, as I proposed above. I found no reason
to exclude cutting out of pieces, in which case the object is not man-made, and the removed piece is. I therefore
propose to relax part-removal from Physical Man-Made wholes to Physical wholes in general. But may be cutting
out of pieces is better seen as using an object as raw material to produce something?
In any case there are situations, where the individual documentation of a part begins with the part removal, even though it
existed before in a clearly defined form. So either we take as default for the creation of a part appearing in a removal
the creation of the whole object, or we assume its creation in the moment of its removal??

Please comment.

Martin
--

--------------------------------------------------------------
 Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(810)391625         |
 Principle Researcher          |  Fax:+30(810)391609         |
 Project Leader SIS            |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                                                             |
               Information Systems Laboratory                |
                Institute of Computer Science                |
   Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
                                                             |
 Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
                                                             |
         Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/proj/isst         |
--------------------------------------------------------------





More information about the Crm-sig mailing list