[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Fri Oct 18 20:22:41 EEST 2019


Dear Robert,

On 10/16/2019 9:39 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> Yes, that makes sense, thank you.
>
> One further observation…
>
> > The same reasoning holds for many dimensions, but there is no typical 
> practice as vague as that of providing a point near a place.
>
> I think there’s some very similar practice however of providing 
> multiple values for the same dimension, that at least are roundings 
> from the same measurement.
>
I wold see this as different. Measurements use some device and 
procedure. Properly document, we understand their behaviour. A spot 
marked on a map near something has no particular procedure associated.
>
> For example the Met’s descriptions have “H. 14 5/16 in. (36.4 cm)” and 
> similar [1], ours are the other way around “23 x 16.5 cm (9 1/16 x 6 ½ 
> in.)” [2] as does MFA Boson [3], the NGA [4] and many others.
>
> With P90a and P90b we could give a margin of error, but indeed that is 
> not common practice that I can find.
>
Well, in natural sciences it is. That's what physicist learn to do... 
Serious publications require it always.
>
> So while the true place falls_within the declared approximations, we 
> cannot say that both 14 5/16 in. and 36.4 cm are close approximations 
> of the same height. They may have both come from different Measurement 
> activities, rather than one being calculated from the other, so we 
> can’t use that as a joining entity.
>
> > I suggest to regard any dimension as an approximation, except for 
> counting stable aggregates of things.
>
> Do you mean then to remove the “true quantity” description from the 
> scope notes?
>
Indeed:-)
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Rob
>
> [1] 
> https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/455545?&searchField=All&ft=*&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=12
>
> [2] http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/34663/
>
> [3] https://collections.mfa.org/objects/58904
>
> [4] https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.4217.html
>
> *From: *Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 11:18 AM
> *To: *Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu>, "crm-sig at ics.forth.gr" 
> <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> I have been a bit sloppy, as always;-).
>
> A phenomenal place is thought to be recognizable within some fuzzy 
> limits. So, indeed, all spatial coordinates for a phenomenal place are 
> approximations. For those approximations, we normally use the 
> properties "has former or current location" or "falls within", which 
> both include the true place. That means, that the intersection of all 
> those is still includes the true place. With these properties, I can 
> query absolutely where the place is guaranteed not to be, and within 
> which limits I find it. With P189, we mean an approximation of unknown 
> guaranteed relations to the approximated. So, we cannot query yes or 
> no where the real place is in relation to the approximation.
>
> The same reasoning holds for many dimensions, but there is no typical 
> practice as vague as that of providing a point near a place.
>
> On the other side, many dimensions are not stable over time. For 
> those, each measurement provides another dimension. Many measurements 
> are given with statistical deviation values. The scenario intersecting 
> all measurements to get closer to the real value normally does not 
> hold. It will be a combination of measurement deviations and varying 
> "real value", and intrinsic fuzziness of the property measured.
>
> Therefore I suggest to regard any dimension as an approximation, 
> except for counting stable aggregates of things.
>
> Would that make sense:-)?
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 10/16/2019 6:54 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>     Thanks Martin!  A couple of clarifying questions, please …
>
>     > The point is, that true numerical values of Dimensions do not
>     exist for continuous value spaces.
>
>     Could you explain how you see this being different for E53 Place?
>     The true Place also doesn’t exist as space is also continuous.
>     Doubly so as the definition of place says it is independent of
>     matter. No matter how precise I am about a lat/long/altitude, I
>     still could be more precise. Or more precise about a location
>     relative to an object as a frame of reference; notably as this
>     frame of reference would need to be measured … which would mean
>     that Place would rely on the Dimensions. So it seems like we can
>     reduce the Place approximation to a Dimension approximation, at
>     least in the case of relative coordinate spaces.
>
>     > For any approximation with known inclusion or overlap properties
>     to the real place, P189 should NOT be used. A "real place" can be
>     confirmed by multiple observations for things that do not move or
>     have not moved.
>
>     And also for this … how would we have multiple observations of the
>     Place, such that it was clear that they were all approximations of
>     a single phenomenal place, without using P189?  For example, I
>     have a bounding box for my city of birth, and a centroid pin for
>     it … I wasn’t born in two places, yet without using P189, I would
>     need to have two P7s … no? What am I missing? 😊
>
>     Many thanks,
>
>     Rob
>
>     *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>
>     <mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr
>     <martin at ics.forth.gr> <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:18 AM
>     *To: *"crm-sig at ics.forth.gr" <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions
>
>     Dear Robert, All,
>
>     Your proposal well taken, but the recent change in the scope note
>     was exactly that "The properties of the class E54 Dimension allow
>     for expressing the numerical approximation of the values of
>     instances of E54 Dimension. ".
>
>     The point is, that true numerical values of Dimensions do not
>     exist for continuous value spaces. Therefore, any measurement and
>     opinion about the values are approximations.So, there is no need
>     for another property. Measurements have typically known
>     tolerances, which may be statistical, as mean deviations, or absolute.
>
>     The property P189 was introduced because of the huge number of
>     geo-referenced resource with no indication how distant or
>     different the approximating area is from the real place. For any
>     approximation with known inclusion or overlap properties to the
>     real place, P189 should NOT be used. A "real place" can be
>     confirmed by multiple observations for things that do not move or
>     have not moved.
>
>     This scenario does not exist in the same way for dimensions *in
>     general.*
>
>     I recommend to adjust scope notes and guidelines adequately. If a
>     dimension is given as 10cm, it is per definitionem an
>     approximation, because no natural thing has dimension
>     10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
>     cm.
>
>     A fine example of measurement tolerances is the recent problem of
>     determining the proton radius:
>
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_radius_puzzle
>
>     See also:
>
>     http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-history-plots.pdf
>
>     https://www.quantamagazine.org/proton-radius-puzzle-deepens-with-new-measurement-20160811/
>
>     I think it is a question of guide lines how to interpret the
>     absence of P10a,b.
>
>     Opinions?
>
>     Best,
>
>     Martin
>
>
>     On 10/15/2019 7:13 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>         Dear all,
>
>         In recent history, we have added P189 approximates for the
>         practically ubiquitous scenario where we have recorded the
>         approximate “declarative” place of an event, but not the exact
>         “phenomenal” place. P189 allows us to say that the event took
>         place at the phenomenal place, which is then approximated by
>         the declarative place.
>
>         Thus:
>
>           Birth_of_Rob a E67_Birth ;
>
>         p7_took_place_at [
>
>          a E53_Place ;
>
>         rdfs:label “The exact place Rob was born” ;
>
>         p189i_approximated_by [
>
>         a E53_Place ;
>
>         rdfs:label “New Zealand” ;
>
>          // …
>
>         ]
>
>             ]
>
>         This gives us two significant advantages:
>
>          1. We can have multiple declarative places associated with
>             the single phenomenal place. This allows us to be clear
>             that the event took place in one location, but we have
>             multiple ways to describe that location in our information
>             system.
>          2. If we can be precise (enough) about the phenomenal place
>             (e.g. we have the GPS coordinates from the digital camera
>             that took the photograph), then we do not have a different
>             model … we can simply ascribe those coordinate values to
>             the phenomenal place.
>
>         While the E53 Place scope notes do not talk about
>         approximation, there is another class that does … the very
>         next one, E54 Dimension.
>
>         An instance of E54 Dimension represents the true quantity,
>         independent from its numerical
>
>         approximation, e.g. in inches or in cm.
>
>         However, there isn’t a property that allows us to use this
>         same approximation pattern for Dimensions.
>
>         The same advantages would apply:
>
>          1. We can have multiple declarative dimensions (10 inches, 25
>             centimeters) that approximate the true dimension, rather
>             than implying there are two different dimensions.
>          2. If we do not have this case, because the dimension is
>             measured very accurately and has only a single numerical
>             representation, then we can simply use a single Dimension.
>
>         This is also useful for conservation when the same dimension
>         is measured to different degrees of accuracy with different
>         instruments or techniques … there is only a single height (for
>         example) but it is measured with a laser, or by estimation.
>
>         Thus I would like to propose the addition of a new property,
>         Pxxx_approximates_dimension, that mirrors P189_approximates,
>         that would be used to associate true dimensions with their
>         approximations.
>
>         It would be used in exactly the same way as P189:
>
>         painting a Human-Made_Object ;
>
>         has_dimension [
>
>             a Dimension ;
>
>         p2_has_type <aat:height> ;
>
>         pxxxi_dimension_approximated_by [
>
>         a Dimension ;
>
>         p90_has_value 10 ;
>
>         p91_has_unit <aat:inches>
>
>             ]
>
>           ]
>
>         Thank you for your consideration of this issue!  I’m happy to
>         write up a draft scope note for discussion if the general
>         issue is considered to be worthy of inclusion.
>
>         Rob
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         Crm-sig mailing list
>
>         Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr  <mailto: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  <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>   
>
>       Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl  
>
>     	
>
>     *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not
>     click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and
>     know the content is safe.*
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------
>   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  <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>   
>   Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl  
>
> 	
>
> *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not 
> click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know 
> the content is safe.*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20191018/82e3a2dd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list