[Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Sat Nov 16 22:10:53 EET 2019


Dear All,

Let me add two remarks:

Information lives from relations, not classes. To talk about 
arrangements to sell a physical object and a conceptual object, does not 
create a requirement for a class combining the two. You just sell two 
things of different nature, in one provision. You may describe a plan to 
do so. In order to list a set of things to be sold in a Plan (E29), does 
not create a need for a "set" class.

Our first concern is *NOT* to create new classes, if we can avoid it. A 
new class is a burden for implementation, use, training and integration, 
in a standard.

How long a physical aggregate is kept purposely together and used as 
one, does not affect its physical substance.

See attached slides about "Temporary Aggregates" we had proposed for 
biodiversity studies. It actually does not need a new class, as it does 
not introduce new properties. Simply, the production and destruction is 
implied in its use.

Best,

Martin

On 10/22/2019 12:26 AM, Athanasios Velios wrote:
> What Martin describes was my understanding as well at the Linked.Art 
> meeting. In response to Rob's notes:
>
> I think that indeed we have the "lot (object)" which is a physical 
> thing that is sold and "lot (record)" which is a document talking 
> about the "lot (object)". Writing about a physical thing does not make 
> it a concept, it creates a new concept. So I think there is no problem 
> there.
>
> The problem is Rob's note 4 which George also mentioned: that the lot 
> that someone buys may be a non-material thing and aggregated only for 
> the auction. It is likely a conceptual object, so maybe we need 
> something like "P148 has component (is component of)" in that case?
>
> If one goes down the "lot" as a subclass route, the two lots (lot 
> physical and lot conceptual) should be different classes I think. But 
> I can see that increases complexity.
>
> T.
>
> On 21/10/2019 19:56, Martin Doerr wrote:
>> Dear Florian, All,
>>
>> It is not clear to me why people do not want to use E18 for 
>> Aggregates that are not intended to grow over time in the sense of a 
>> collection. The time, how long they are together, does not play a 
>> role. The question is only, if they are well defined and identified 
>> for some time.
>>
>> For biodiversity scenaria, we have used a concept of Temporary 
>> Aggregate which exists only within an Activity, such as a catch of 
>> plankton and counting the species in it.
>>

-- 
------------------------------------
  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20191116/66536dde/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: New Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 60101 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20191116/66536dde/attachment-0001.pptx>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list