[Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Fri Jan 17 20:35:03 EET 2020


Dear Robert,

Yes, that is a good question!
For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.

Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a 
Linguistic Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.
But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.

However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not 
separated out as complement, because following all the discussions we 
had in the past, there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished 
from inscriptions.

So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider 
sense, which are not the codified monograms etc.

isn't it?

best,

martin



On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose 
> also that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short 
> texts” in a class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It 
> seems strange to me that Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when 
> that is clearly text with a language. That would, IMO, need to be E37 
> Inscription if we wanted to talk about the content / meaning, rather 
> than just the visual appearance of some symbols. Yet the scope note 
> for Mark makes assertions about the intent, which implies a semantic 
> understanding of the language encoded by the symbols.
>
> Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all 
> inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate 
> the creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc.  Either the  “etc” 
> covers all intents (at which point it is a worthless clause) or there 
> are some texts that are inscribed on objects that do not count as 
> inscriptions.
>
> One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” … that does 
> not seem to fall under the definition of Mark, given the intent 
> clause. Similarly the “Keep off the grass” sign example is to instruct 
> the students of Balliol to not walk on the lawn. That seems very 
> different from a Mark … yet it is one?
>
> Finally, I think there is a minor typo in the new sentence. I think it 
> should read:  … as they are used to codify the marks in reference 
> documents …
>
> (or something like that)
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Rob
>
> *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin 
> Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
> *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM
> *To: *crm-sig <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> *Subject: *[Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>
> Dear All,
>
> There were questions about the level of abstraction of E37 Mark. 
> Therefore I rewrite, following the relevant discussions when this 
> class was defined. The argument was that it should directly link to 
> the codes that are used in museum documentation for (registered) marks.
>
> *Old scope note:*
>
> Scope note:         This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or 
> short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by 
> arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, 
> dedications, purpose, etc.
>
>  This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic 
> significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be 
> documented as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature.
>
> *NEW*
>
> Scope note:         This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or 
> short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by 
> arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, 
> dedications, purpose, etc. Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the 
> actual image of a mark, but the abstract ideal, as they use to be 
> codified in reference documents that are used in cultural documentation.
>
>  This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic 
> significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be 
> documented as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature.
>
> Can someone provide a relevant example from an authority document of 
> marks?
>
> Such as
>
> Castagno, John. /Old Masters: Signatures and Monograms, 1400–Born 
> 1800/. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996.
>
> Caplan, H. H. and Bob Creps. /Encyclopedia of Artists' Signatures, 
> Symbols & Monograms: Old Masters to Modern, North American & European 
> plus More; 25,000 Examples/. Land O'Lakes, FL: Dealer's Choice Books, 
> 1999.
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------
>   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
  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/20200117/5f746f11/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list