[Crm-sig] ISSUE: P55 should have domain E18 Physical Thing

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Fri Mar 9 14:59:12 EET 2012

Dear Vladimir,

On 9/3/2012 11:24 πμ, Vladimir Alexiev wrote:
> Dear Martin,
>>>> P55 excludes: Physical Feature, Site, Man-Made Feature,
>>>> an-Made Thing, Collection. What is the justification?
>>> The idea is that features cannot change location, therefore there is no
>>> current location.
>> To me this is a bit counter-intuitive: a permanent location is not
> current? I'd say it's
>> current for eternity :-)
>> P53 is not a "permanent" location, it is any location the thing ever had,
> in particular the
>> current one.
>> Please do not confuse "former OR current" with "former AND current"!
Well, of course a permanent location is also current. P53 is any 
location in time,
hence it entails current locations, and current locations entail 
permanent locations.
I wanted to say that there is no point in stating as an additional 
observation that a
feature has a "current location". I do not understand, what the utility 
would be in a
P55 is there in order to be able to distinguish the current from other 
different locations.
What is you use case? You can add to your query a rule, that retrieves 
together with
P55 all P53 to features.

> I have not confused OR and AND ever since mommy told me "you can't have an
> icecream and a coke, but you may pick one" at age 8 :-).
> I am speaking about P55, not P53.
> For me the inability to state that an immovable thing "P55 has current
> location" is counter-intuitive.
How would allowing to explicitly state P55 for features increase your 
You know it anyhow by inference from P53. (By the way, this is a 
non-exclusive or: icecream, coke or both).
Which curator would appreciate to invest time for such statements?
> If CIDOC considers it an appropriate limitation, then the reason should be
> stated in the scope note of P55 to avoid confusion.
> --
>>> I think "at the time the property was recorded" should be changed to "at
> present".
>>> Since we don't know the time the property was recorded, this makes P55
> kind of
>>> useless...
>> If you have a database or an inventory record saying "current location",
>> it can only be at the time the record was created.
> Not if the DB has a "business date" field. Then the date of recording
> becomes irrelevant.
>> It is absolutely impossible to conclude from such a statement in
>> a museum record what holds "at present". How would you do that?
> You convert all records to P53, but the last one to P55.
> If a new record comes in later, you replace the previous P55 with P53 and
> create a new P53.
> This embodies a closed world assumption and is non-monotonic,
> but P55 has a closed-world flavor anyway,
> because normally there can be only ONE current location.
> Under your interpretation, you'd convert all records to P55 because they
> were current at the time they were made.
> But that makes P55 the same as P53, therefore useless.
> The current scope note refers to an UNKNOWN past moment ("the time the
> property was recorded"), which I think is useless.
> I propose to change it to a known and important although moving moment ("at
> present"), and let data migrators worry how they will fulfill that.
Actually we mean exactly the same. The question is how you interpret the
term "recorded". We have not encountered your interpretation so far.
The present can never be a reference, only the validity date of
the containing record or database.

Indeed, P55 has a closed-world flavor and we generally discourage using it.
The idea is of course to turn all P55 into P53 when you have no validity 
any more.

I propose to change the scope notes of P50, P52, P55,
"at the time the property was recorded"
"at the time of validity of the containing record or database".

May be the issue deserves an explanation in the introduction about
temporal validity of properties.



> Regards! Vladimir
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                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               |
              Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list