[Crm-sig] A symbol made of symbols

George Bruseker george.bruseker at gmail.com
Fri Jan 17 15:27:35 EET 2020


So all is well that ends well except

current version button on front page. It is, I think, weird that it points
to 6.2.3. If by current version we mean the latest raw and unfinished
version, then it should be 6.2.7. If we mean the last official community
version (another potential meaning of current) then it should point to
6.2.1. It shouldn't point to 6.2.3.



On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:45 PM Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the version issue is a general problem with CRM documentation,
> which is related to the other thread about being able to resolve URIs
> consistently. If you go to http://www.cidoc-crm.org/ and click "Current
> Version", it's 6.2.3, so I wasn't aware there were any newer ones. Now that
> I've found the documentation for the actual latest version, I see that P190
> offers the following example:
>
> "The inscription (E34) on Rijksmuseum object SK-A-1601 has symbolic
> content “B”"
>
> So I think this would work.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 4:17 PM Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> P190 is in the most recent PDFs since about 6.2.4 or 6.2.5? (In linked
>> art it’s mapped to `content`, FWIW).
>>
>>
>>
>> Apart from my general disinterest in E37 and E34, I think the scope note
>> for E37 could be made more precise … I don’t think that E37 can represent a
>> “short text” as text implies language, and E37 is not a subclass of E33
>> Linguistic Object.  E37 is only visual (a subclass of E36) compared to E34
>> which is both.
>>
>>
>>
>> That said, you could exchange E33 for E37 in my model, as P190 is a
>> property of E90 Symbolic Object, which is in the class hierarchy for all of
>> the above options.
>>
>> The relevant first sentence for P190:
>>
>>     This property associates an instance of E90 Symbolic Object with a
>> complete, identifying representation of its content in the form of an
>> instance of E62 String
>>
>>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 12:21 PM
>> *To: *Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu>
>> *Cc: *"crm-sig at ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] A symbol made of symbols
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure that works since we've decided that a monogram is an
>> E37_Mark ("This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts
>> applied to instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing by arbitrary techniques
>> in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, etc.").
>>
>>
>>
>> I think your example doesn't allow us to answer the baseline research
>> question of querying for individual letters that comprise a monogram.
>>
>>
>>
>> <chi-rho> a crm:E37_Mark ;
>>
>>   crm:P106_is_composed_of "Χ"; #Greek chi
>>
>>   crm:P106_is_composed_of "Ρ" . #Greek rho
>>
>>
>>
>> Where is P190 documented? I'm looking at the PDF for 6.2.3, and I'm not
>> seeing that property in there. Or, there is a P190, but it's not
>> has_symbolic_content.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ethan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:07 PM Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Ethan,
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you do :
>>
>>
>>
>> ?monogram a E33_Linguistic_Object ; crm:P106_is_composed_of ?character .
>>
>> ?character a E33_Linguistic_Object ; crm:P190_has_symbolic_content “☧” .
>>
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>> That would avoid the punning that the chi-rho is both an E33 and a
>> literal at the same time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Ethan Gruber
>> <ewg4xuva at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 9:59 AM
>> *Cc: *"crm-sig at ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] A symbol made of symbols
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a followup question to the use of crm:P165i_is_incorporated_in. We
>> have implemented this property to link a Monogram to a representative,
>> idealized SVG URI. In a very narrow subset of cases (maybe only one that I
>> know of so far), a monogram is notable enough to have warranted entry into
>> Unicode, the chi-rho Christogram: ☧
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a need to define URIs for these Christograms so that we can
>> exploit the constituent letters via P106_is_composed_of in SPARQL. We have
>> at least a few examples of Monograms that consist of both Latin letters and
>> a Christogram, e.g.,
>>
>>
>>
>> ?monogram crm:P106_is_composed_of+ "Ρ" #Greek rho
>>
>>
>>
>> So I just want to confirm that a single Unicode character itself is an
>> E73 Information Object, even if this is an unusual implementation.
>>
>>
>>
>> ?monogram crm:P165i_is_incorporated_in "☧"
>>
>>
>>
>> Ethan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:15 AM Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi George,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think this makes a lot of sense. I can use the D1 Digital Object, and
>> this is pretty useful for us as I would like to be able to associate the
>> SVG with the person who created it or other processes of production
>> (derived from a font file, e.g.). I've forwarded to the Nomisma list and
>> hopefully we'll agree and start publishing our monograms online soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ethan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:28 AM George Bruseker <george.bruseker at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ethan,
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is my take.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a large number (thousands) of monograms that appear on Greek
>> coinage. There is an SVG file that represents an idealized form of the
>> monogram. The Nomisma ontology has a nmo:Monogram class, and I am
>> attempting to link Nomisma more directly as subclasses or subproperties to
>> CIDOC-CRM ones. A monogram fits the definition of a subclass of
>> crm:E37_Mark:
>>
>>
>>
>> "This  class  comprises  symbols,  signs,  signatures  or  short  texts
>>  applied  to  instances  of  E24  Physical Man-Made Thing by arbitrary
>> techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose,
>> etc."
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it seems the right match.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In this sense, if I want to link a monogram to its constituent letters,
>> is P106_is_composed_of the appropriate property for this?
>>
>>
>>
>> For example, I have a URI for a monogram,
>> http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbol/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore:
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbol/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3> a
>> nmo:Monogram ;
>>
>>   crm:P106_is_composed_of "T" ;
>>
>>   crm:P106_is_composed_of "H" .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This also seems the right match. If you are not concerned about the
>> particular form of the letters, then I guess you could make the letters
>> instances of E90 Symbolic Object.
>>
>>
>>
>> etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> The next question I have is how do I link this concept of a monogram to
>> one or more SVG files that represent this monogram? There could be variant
>> images based on individual styles of die-carvers, but scholars agree these
>> variations represent the same semantic concept.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am looking at the documentation for P138 represents, and I am having a
>> difficult time understanding the distinction between the examples where a
>> digital file (PLY 3D model or a JPEG image) is the E36 Visual Item, but in
>> other documentation the E36 Visual Item seems more conceptual.
>>
>>
>>
>> If a Visual Item is definitionally an E1 CRM Entity, then a Visual Item
>> can still represent another Visual Item, correct? So:
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbol/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3> a
>> nmo:Monogram ;
>>
>>   crm:P106_is_composed_of "T" ;
>>
>>   crm:P106_is_composed_of "H" ;
>>
>>   crm:P138i_has_representation <
>> http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbols/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3>
>> #svg file url
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For the question of relating the instance of Mark (the monograms) to the
>> SVG, I would do this otherwise. I would take advantage of D1 Digital Object
>> class for the instances of SVG and their characteristics. [if you won’t
>> like extensions, then E73 information object] I would then link the
>> instances of D1 to the individual marks through the p165
>> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/P165-incorporates/Version-6.2.1> incorporation
>> property which allows one information object to incorporate another.
>>
>>
>>
>> For the question of relating one instance of Mark (such that that is
>> uniquely identifiable from another but which is nevertheless a variant of
>> the same Mark), you could make use of the p130
>> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/P130-shows-features-of/Version-6.2.1> property
>> ’shows features of’. It has a property on property that allows you to
>> specify the kind of similarity.
>>
>>
>>
>> I attach an example of the proposed solution as a diagram. I guess the
>> one part of your problem that it does not address is the ur-imageness of
>> the one idealization. I guess the ur type did not historically exist but is
>> the composite based on scholarly research. Therefore it sounds like
>> creation of a type, see E83
>> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Entity/E83-Type-Creation/Version-6.2.1>
>> Perhaps this is a picture for a type? Or you could make one instance of
>> Mark which is the ur instance and say that all the other instance are
>> related to it in particular as variant, but that doesn’t seem correct at
>> first thought.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: cid:16e4b932ae91cc3c9f51]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ethan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *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.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20200117/3bd3d3f1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 73610 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20200117/3bd3d3f1/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list