[Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRM issue
martin.scholz at informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Tue May 13 12:14:06 EEST 2014
the discussion so far is only concerned about part-whole in time. E3 and E4,
however, both also extend in space -- but they use different CRM classes:
an E3 Condition State is limited to an E18 Physical Thing, an E4 Period is
limited to an E53 Place. E2, however, is only located in time, not in space.
The scope notes of P5 and P9 do not explicitly address the spatial aspect. The
examples are only about temporal parts.
I could think of spatial parts like
- period Renaissance has parts Italian/... Renaissance or
- the condition state of an ensemble being in ruins but with its parts having
different states of decay or even being intact.
So my question is whether P5 and P9 are intended to only cover temporal or also
Am 13.05.2014 09:58, schrieb martin:
> Dear Simon,
> I have the impression that you take the density of time, to which CRM commits,
> for the decomposition of phenomena happening in time, which is E2,
> the nature of E2 is not the nature of time however.
> Further, you seem to talk about the question if there are minimal elements, that
> cannot be subdivided further. For time, the CRM does not assume that, as you
> argue. Currently, the CRM assumes only for Actor minimal elements of decomposition.
> The first question is rather, if there are phenomena in time that reveal a
> structure with distinct recognizable identities that have a part-whole
> relationship, such as "Early Minoan" and "Middle Minoan". They are identified
> by observable characteristics, not by subdivision on the time-line.
> The second question is, if these part-whole relationships can be mixed between
> subcategories: Can a natural part of a Condition State be an Event, or can a E4
> Period ever have a part which is a Condition State? If not, then a common
> property would produce "non-intended models" as Nicola Guarino describes it.
> This cannot always be avoided, but we try to minimalize this effect.
> Finally, CRM properties are optional, so there is no commitment given by the
> definition of a part-of property, that all instances of that class must have
> parts. Indeed, for material objects, we may end up with nuclear particles as end
> points, but those are out of scope, but long before, the notion of a Physical
> Object would loose its meaning.
> If there is a characteristic class in scope which forms the minimal elements,
> then we would model the decomposition down to this class, as in the case of
> Actor and Person.
> The question if the labels of these part-of relations should be different is
> interesting. So far we have prefered that they have all the same name, because
> that renders the meaning clearly, but different P-number, which renders the
> constraint. To include the class name in the label may be another method to
> render the constraint, but it produces long names difficult for translation, and
> is counterintuitive when used with subclasses, such as an Event consisting of
> several Periods, or a Period consisting of Events, which is intended.
> On 13/5/2014 12:51 ??, Simon Spero wrote:
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Stead <steads at paveprime.com
>> <mailto:steads at paveprime.com>> wrote:
>> The question is not could we generalise the property to E2 but are
>> there potential instances of E2 that are not E3's or E4's that
>> potentially do not have decomposition. I do not know and
>> additionally I am not sure I want to
>> spend a lot of time making sure that by their very nature all E2's
>> are decomposable!!
>> This actually a rather significant ontological decision.
>> If there are temporal entities that cannot be so divided then the underlying
>> temporal ontology is /discrete. /
>> If every temporal entity can always be so decomposed, then the underlying
>> temporal ontology is /dense/.
>> CRM is committed to a dense ontology (because of the approximate model of time
>> points, and the rejection of any momentary events*) , so it would seem all E2
>> must be decomposable.
>> It is of course, not the case that the type of every part is the same as the
>> type of the whole; conversely, there may be certain granularities where each
>> part /is/ of the same type - e.g. the granularity of a step, each part of a
>> walk is also a walk.
>> * e.g. "the upward velocity of the ball I just tossed becoming zero" is not
>> considered to be momentary, in spite of calculus, because the precise
>> beginning and end points are cannot be defined as equal, just not
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Martin Scholz, Diplom-Informatiker
AG Digital Humanities
Tel: +49 9131 85 29094
Fax: +49 9131 85 28781
Mail: martin.scholz at cs.fau.de
More information about the Crm-sig