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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Sat Jan 18 14:59:51 EET 2020


I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be 
regarded Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, 
translation etc. No need to make them linguistic objects.

Best,

Martin

On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be 
> solved by double instantiation?
>
> All the best,
>
> Øyvind
>
>> Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:ewg4xuva at gmail.com>>:
>>
>> I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.
>>
>> I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or 
>> combination of letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an 
>> American coin? It's a mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" 
>> characters on a Roman coin correspond to the authority of the Senate. 
>> These are obviously linguistic objects that carry a narrower semantic 
>> meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark.
>>
>> Ethan
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson 
>> <RSanderson at getty.edu <mailto:RSanderson at getty.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that
>>     we’re discussing:
>>
>>       * A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
>>       * B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
>>       * C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>>       * D) All Inscriptions are Marks
>>       * E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic
>>         Objects
>>
>>     I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above
>>     are accurate.
>>
>>     For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the
>>     symbolic content is not related to the intents given in the scope
>>     note, and thus either the scope note should be changed to remove
>>     the intents and be clearer about the nature of the class, or
>>     Inscription should not be a subclass of Mark.
>>
>>     For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the
>>     scope for the Mark class, then there must be some Marks that are
>>     Linguistic Objects as short text implies that the symbols encode
>>     some natural language. I think that the scope note should be
>>     changed to remove “short text” to avoid this issue. Marks should
>>     be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there is a
>>     linguistic interpretation of the content, then they should
>>     instead be Inscriptions.
>>
>>     Hope that clarifies!
>>
>>     Rob
>>
>>     *From: *Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr
>>     <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>>
>>     *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
>>     *To: *Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu
>>     <mailto:RSanderson at getty.edu>>, crm-sig <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>     <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>>
>>     *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>>
>>     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>
>>         <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: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM
>>         *To: *crm-sig <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>         <mailto: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  <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 <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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20200118/d08f59b2/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list