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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Oct 22 20:07:05 EEST 2019


Dear All,

If the auction lot is just a list, then we could model it as a list, 
which refers to the things. A plan of what to sell. If it is sold piece 
by piece to different clients, it is not clear why it should be regarded 
as one thing at all.

If it has an identifier for this particular set, regardless how far away 
the parts, and they are handled together under this identifier, there is 
a unity criterion conforming with E18. The composite object exists as 
long as its parts are can be accessed reasonably for the function 
characteristic for that object. If some figures of a set of chessmen has 
fallen into the sea, we regard that the set ceased to exist, because it 
is out of normal reach for playing with it.

We can check if a concept of a temporary aggregate would do the job.

See also the White Paper of Europeana about collections. There is a 
concept of sets of references used to talk about things, such as 
literature lists, which are not library holdings.

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.
>>
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list