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

Athanasios Velios thanasis at softicon.co.uk
Tue Oct 22 00:26:03 EEST 2019


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.
> 
> Since the CRM does not model subclasses without distinct properties, the 
> Auction Lot is an E18, and you are free to introduce your own subclass 
> for it.
> 
> Making E78 any aggregate, we come in conflicts separating it from E18. 
> NOTE, that an E18 does not require physical coherence, such as sets of 
> chessmen etc. We would then have competing models, if the distinction 
> cannot be made clearly.
> 
> We have discussed repeatedly, that a useful distinction of 
> "non-aggregates" from "aggregates" cannot be made.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 10/21/2019 1:43 PM, Florian Kräutli wrote:
>> Dear George,
>>
>> This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note 
>> of E78 suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there 
>> is no satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections 
>> you describe.
>>
>> However, instead of introducing another class and then having to come 
>> up with criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' I 
>> would rather extend the examples under E78 to include other types of 
>> aggregates.
>>
>> Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for 
>> auction lots, as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated 
>> Holding. The term in the scope note that might stand in the way is 
>> that the aggregation is said to be assembled "according to a 
>> particular *collection development plan*". An auction lot is not 
>> generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but it 
>> is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that term 
>> is necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as a 
>> Collection.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Florian
>>
>>> On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker <george.bruseker at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:george.bruseker at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting 
>>> to model information related to auctions. It happens that during 
>>> auctions, lots (collections or sets of things) are created with the 
>>> intention that things will be sold together. Ie they are aggregates. 
>>> In facing the question of modelling this, we seem to have some options.
>>>
>>> 1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to 
>>> hold these things together for a day or so and to sell them together
>>>
>>> 2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended 
>>> modelling aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts.
>>>
>>> The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes against 
>>> the intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one 
>>> instantiating a physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for 
>>> E78) for an aggregate that will possibly only ever be together once. 
>>> In fact, since the objects are only put together in the lot for the 
>>> intention of sale, they may not have had to have been physically 
>>> brought together as a physical item ever. In this sense modelling 
>>> them with either E78 or E19 seems to break ontological commitment (ie 
>>> we do not think that these things were ever brought together or 
>>> treated physically as one).
>>>
>>> Because Linked.art also has members in the group who represent modern 
>>> art museums, the discussion also comes upon the possibility that 
>>> included in the lot of things sold may be some sort of intellectual 
>>> thing, no physical object at all. Obviously because of its nature, we 
>>> could not bundle a conceptual object with a physical object using 
>>> physical mereology relations. So... modelling difficulty ahoy!
>>>
>>> Could we take up this discussion during SIG (or if there is already a 
>>> satisfactory solution overlooked can it be referred to)?
>>>
>>> To me it seems to raise the question of the possibility of defining a 
>>> conceptual object class for 'set', although I am sure this will open 
>>> up a large discussion!
>>>
>>> Look forward to see you all soon!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>> ref: https://github.com/linked-art/linked.art/issues/281
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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