[Crm-sig] New Issue: dimension intervals

Franco Niccolucci franco.niccolucci at gmail.com
Fri Nov 9 00:14:55 EET 2018


Martin,

I agree with you, E60 Number is a jack-of-all-trades and can be a couple, a triple, whatever numeric value or set of values as long as it is clear what is what.

So for ancient/nonstandard/local units such as ft & inches or Roman cubitus I would add: 

E58 Measurement Unit “ft&inches” P70 is documented in E31 Document “F.W Clarke, Weights Measures and Money of all Nations. Appleton & C. New York 1888”.

Incidentally, Prof. Clarke (from the U. of Cincinnati) wrote in the introduction “Our three sets of weights, our three different gallons, and our two dissimilar bushels, all unrelated to each other, or to the units of length, must soon give way before the simplicity and elegance of the metric system. That this event my soon happen [...] is the sincere wish and hope of the writer.” 130 years have passed since then, at no avail. 

Thus, I would at least regard any such unit (system) as local or historical, and therefore needing a reference description: otherwise for me - and for any scientist - that value of 3 ft 6 inches could equally well be the distance of Alpha Centauri from the Earth, or the size of a bacterium.

Best

Franco

By the way, reference to ISO1000:1992 in the E58 scope note should be updated to ISO80000:2009, superseding ISO1000 and in force for some 10 years now; probably also referencing the so-called "BIPM SI Brochure" would be OK. 

Removing all reference to non-SI units from the scope note description would also be desirable: there is no such thing as “internationally recognized non-SI terms”, who gives this “international recognition” if not the BIPM?
Of course they may remain in the examples, together with the recommendation of preserving archaic measurement units.

F.

Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS

Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy


> Il giorno 8 nov 2018, alle ore 21:00, Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr> ha scritto:
> 
> Dear Richard,
> 
> It requires a sort of datatype or encoding.
> 
> Assume unit = "ft&inches" 
>                value = <3,6>
> 
> would that make sense?
> 
> In the xsd datatypes everything is in the value already.
> 
> best,
> 
> martin
> 
> On 11/8/2018 8:00 PM, Richard Light wrote:
>> While we're looking at this area, I would be grateful if we could also look at Value and Unit.
>> 
>> I have never understood how P90 and P91 are actually meant to be used together. I can see how a single E54 can be represented by a single P90 and a single P91, but how do we represent anything more complex?  An example would be "3 ft 6 inches".  Can that be an E54 Dimension, and if so how do you know which unit applies to which value?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/11/2018 16:10, Martin Doerr wrote:
>>> Dear All.
>>> 
>>> Continuing issue 363,
>>> 
>>> I propose the following:
>>> 
>>> "Whereas the CRM regards that intervals of primitive values are primitive values by themselves, there is currently no corresponding practice in RDF. Therefore, in analogy to the properties of E52 Time-Span, we define in CRM RDFS two more subproperties of P90 has value: “P90a_has_lower_value_limit” and “P90b_has_upper_value_limit”. The precise guidelines for using these properties are to be given."
>>> 
>>> Sensor arrays, more and more in use, pose the issue of a single measurement resulting in an array of numbers which altogether form one quantitative statement about the observed. We can describe such structures easily as one complex type of unit (and define an IRI for it), and then regard the value to a matrix of numbers, in which each position obeys subunits as defined in the complex unit type.
>>> 
>>> Even if we regard complex matrices of numbers as one value for an instance of E54 Dimension, such as RGB image, we can argue that minimal and maximal values exist as two separate matrices of the same structure.
>>> 
>>> Consequently I propose to deprecate P83, P84, because in competes with an interval interpretation of P90, and :
>>> 
>>> Introduce instead Pxxx had duration, Domain:  E52 Time-Span, Range: E54 Dimension
>>> and use the P90, P90a, P90b as adequate
>>> 
>>> or introduce  an Exxx Temporal Duration , subclass of E54 Dimension, and define subproperties in RDFS ending in xsd:duration.
>>> 
>>> See:
>>> P83 had at least duration (was minimum duration of)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Domain:              E52 Time-Span
>>> 
>>> Range:                E54 Dimension
>>> 
>>> Quantification:    one to one (1,1:1,1)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Scope note:         This property describes the minimum length of time covered by an E52 Time-Span.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> It allows an E52 Time-Span to be associated with an E54 Dimension representing it’s minimum duration (i.e. it’s inner boundary) independent from the actual beginning and end.
>>> 
>>> Examples:         
>>> 
>>> §  the time span of the Battle of Issos 333 B.C.E. (E52) had at least duration Battle of Issos minimum duration (E54) has unit (P91) day (E58) has value (P90) 1 (E60)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> In First Order Logic:
>>> 
>>>                            P83(x,y) ⊃ E52(x)
>>> 
>>>                            P83(x,y) ⊃ E54(y)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> P84 had at most duration (was maximum duration of)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Domain:              E52 Time-Span
>>> 
>>> Range:                E54 Dimension
>>> 
>>> Quantification:   one to one (1,1:1,1)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Scope note:         This property describes the maximum length of time covered by an E52 Time-Span.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> It allows an E52 Time-Span to be associated with an E54 Dimension representing it’s maximum duration (i.e. it’s outer boundary) independent from the actual beginning and end.
>>> 
>>> Examples:         
>>> 
>>> §  the time span of the Battle of Issos 333 B.C.E. (E52) had at most duration Battle of Issos maximum duration (E54) has unit (P91) day (E58) has value (P90) 2 (E60)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> In First Order Logic:
>>> 
>>>                            P84(x,y) ⊃ E52(x)
>>> 
>>>                            P84(x,y) ⊃ E54(y)
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>  Dr. Martin Doerr
>>>               
>>>  Honorary Head of the                                                                   
>>>  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 
>>>  
>>>  Vox:+30(2810)391625  
>>>  Email: 
>>> martin at ics.forth.gr
>>>   
>>>  Web-site: 
>>> http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>> 
>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>> 
>> -- 
>> Richard Light
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> 
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------
>  Dr. Martin Doerr
>               
>  Honorary Head of the                                                                   
>  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 
>  
>  Vox:+30(2810)391625  
>  Email: 
> martin at ics.forth.gr
>   
>  Web-site: 
> http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig




More information about the Crm-sig mailing list