[Crm-sig] ISSUE MonetaryAmount Identity

Robert Sanderson RSanderson at getty.edu
Wed Jan 18 01:43:00 EET 2017

On 1/7/17, 9:25 AM, "Crm-sig on behalf of martin" <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr on behalf of martin at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
On 6/1/2017 7:33 μμ, Richard Light wrote:
    I think Rob's point is that there could be a URL to represent the concept of 'the sum of $100'.  You would use this
    same URL each time you wanted to express that concept, not 'a new instance for any new agreement'
    Yes, I understood that. I said to my opinion this representation does not solve a relevant question. So, please tell me a research question, in which this representation makes the critical difference.

It makes a difference *to the model* for the relationship between Linguistic Objects and Monetary Amounts.  For example, if the researchers for a particular sale conclude from a newspaper article that the final auction hammer price was $1M for the painting, is it that the Linguistic Object refers to the Monetary Amount as the generic face value of any old million dollars, or is it explicitly the million dollars that was the sale price?

If the identity of the Monetary Amount can be reused, then there the article should instead refer to the Activity that had the sales price of the Monetary Amount.


    Either way, I'm concerned that useful information ('height') is either lurking within a text string or is lost completely, depending on which approach is intended.  Most working museum documentation systems will support 'Dimension measured' (e.g. height), 'value' (e.g. 23) and 'units' (e.g. 'mm') (with the latter two fields being repeatable as a pair).  How does the current proposal support such an approach?   
    "Height" would be the P2_has_type of the Dimension instance. More precisely, "height in default position", because height does not make a sense without specifying how the object is placed. For comparision, "maximum linear extent" would be better, specifying the maximim distance between spots on the object.

If height [in the default orientation] is the type of the Dimension instance, then it is a particular usage of that combination of value and unit.  This would mean, by inheritance from the superclass, that you would have to have different instances for each different “use” of the face value “1000000 USD”.

At which point, you could just as easily treat it as a dimension completely with a type for “sales price”, “starting price”, “estimated hammer price”, and so forth, rather than needing a specific relationship.


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list