[Crm-sig] issue 223
athinak at ics.forth.gr
Wed Apr 10 10:13:51 EEST 2013
The proposal regarding issue 223 resolves an inconsistency, resulting by
the definitions of the related concepts- since there was a decision then
to measure everything, in order to be consistent with that, then
everything should have (be able to have)a dimension (in the sense of E54,
as it is defined in CRM (…comprises quantifiable properties that can
be measured …and ..approximated by values.. in a mathematical or
conceptual space,.. represents the true quantity, independent from its
On the other hand, with respect to the question as to whether issue 156
correctly changed the range of P39 to E1, I believe, it is a different
issue and has to be re-examined (in my opinion) (e.g you can measure an
earthquake, but can you measure an idea? Or ,on second thought, do we
actually refer to observations of events, processes and things, that some
of them participate in measurements too?
> Am 08.04.2013 um 11:03 schrieb Athina Kritsotaki <athinak at ics.forth.gr>:
>> New Issue: 223
>> Title: Correcting issue 156
>> Dear all,
>> Regarding the decision made on Issue 156 (that changed the range of
>> “P39 measured” to be E1 CRM Entity instead of E70 Thing)
>> there seems to be an inconsistency in resolving that issue.
>> Current proposal: As a consequence of moving the range from E70 to E1,
>> should also be to move the domain of the property P43 has dimension (is
>> dimension of): E54 Dimension from E70 to E1, in order to be consistent.
>> By definition, the property P43 has dimension is a shortcut of the more
>> fully developed path through P39 measured (was measured by) , E16
>> Measurement P40 observed dimension (was observed in) to E54 Dimension.
>> So, think about this and comment,
>> Athina Kritsotaki
> What exactly is the question? Is this more than a mere technicality after
> the corresponding change to P39? Can one expect situations where this
> specific shortcut describes the Real World differently than the fully
> developed path?
> And sorry for some additional questions that have probably been asked and
> answered before, but I don't fully understand Issue 156. Was the change
> introduced in order to measure E2 Temporal Entities? Why can E77
> Persistent Item and its subclass E39 Actor now be measured when they
> couldn't be measured before?
> What can be measured in a "proper" E1? Does the argument regarding E18
> Physical Thing and its subclasses E19 Physical Object and E26 Physical
> Feature ("we forbid in the CRM to declare complements") also apply to E1
> and its subclasses E2 and E77, and one would choose E1 if in doubt? Are
> the other subclasses (E52 Time-Span, E53 Place and E54 Dimension itself)
> also supposed to be measured with P43 / P39?
> (Issue 159 was closed in 2008, but the change to P39 is apparently not yet
> included in the latest Cidoc version; why?)
> And sorry again, but I don't understand the general relationship between
> measurements and counting. In Issue 157 (but not in the 5.1 draft) there
> is an example "Number of coins in a silver hoard" for E54 Dimension. So,
> is the process of counting just a specific kind of measurement, even if
> there is no measurement unit, i.e. an E54 with an E60 but no E58? Is
> counting included in the description "can be measured by some calibrated
> means" in the Scope note of E54? Why not use E60 directly without E54?
> Is there, or should there be, a connection to P57 "has number of parts"?
> This seems to imply a counting process. Is it a measurement, too? Should
> P57 be a shortcut, too?
> In the Scope note of E39: "Material and immaterial things and processes
> may be measured, e.g. the number of words in a text". (When counting words
> in a text, is there a measurement unit or not?) Why does P57 not apply
> here, apart from its domain being E19 Physical Object? And "An instance of
> E54 Dimension represents the true quantity": Is it even possible to assume
> a "true quantity" with a wobbly and language-specific concept such as
More information about the Crm-sig