[Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
Martin Doerr
martin at ics.forth.gr
Sat Jan 18 18:18:02 EET 2020
Dear Christian-Emil,
I agree with that. I prefer to be more verbose and add:
"often in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose or
public announcement",
But I would not insist on that.
Best wishes and hope you are well!
martin
On 1/18/2020 2:43 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The discussion is interesting, I have been down with a cold and have
> not been able to comment earlier. Martin is right that this corner of
> CRM has not been much discussed the last 15 years. The inheritance
> hierarchy is
>
> E73 Information Object
>
> | \
>
> E36 Visual Item \
>
> | \
>
> E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object
>
> | /
>
> E34 Inscription
>
> I start at the bottom with E34 Inscription. Although the class name
> should be considered a sign without semantic content, I found the OED
> definition quite clarifying:
>
> “ Inscription… 2. concrete. That which is inscribed; a piece of
> writing or lettering upon something; a set of characters or words
> written, engraved, or otherwise traced upon a surface; esp. a legend,
> description, or record traced upon some hard substance for the sake of
> durability, as on a monument, building, stone, tablet, medal, coin,
> vase, etc.”
>
> So an inscription is a linguistic object applied to (traced upon)
> something. This is the essence of the E34 Inscription except that
> being a subclass of E73 restructed to E36 Visual Item it is the
> abstract content and the abstract form/visual appearance and not the
> physical thing. An inscription need not to be short, e.g. the
> inscription of the law text found at Gortyn at southern Crete
> comprising about 640 lines of text. So the word ‘short’ should be
> deleted in the scope note of E37 Mark.
>
> The class name “Mark” of E37 is clearly without semantic content since
> the word has long series of different meanings.
>
> Comments to the new scope note:
>
> The phrase “This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short
> texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by
> arbitrary techniques” is fine and make all inscriptions instances of
> E37 Mark.
>
>
> The extra explanation/specification “in order to indicate the creator,
> owner, dedications, purpose, etc.” is too restrictive. A short
> description of a person’s life found on a Roman tomb stone or at a
> baroque epitaph or the law text from Gortyn are not created “in order
> to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose”, may be in order
> to “etc.” In my view the phrase should be deleted and can be restated
> via examples.
>
>
> The phrase “Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the actual image of
> a mark, but the abstract ideal” follows from the fact that E37 Mark is
> a subclass of E36 Visual Item and is not needed. May be a reformulation?
>
> The new scope note can be
>
> "This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or texts applied to
> instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by arbitrary techniques.
> E37 Mark is a subclass of E36 Visual Item and thus Instances of E37
> Mark do not represent the actual image of a mark, but an 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."
>
> To the A-E discussion
>
> A and B, all marks and linguistic objects are instances of E73
> Information Object
>
> C, D, E yes to all.
>
> Best,
>
> Christian-Emil
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Øyvind
> Eide <lister at oeide.no>
> *Sent:* 18 January 2020 12:53
> *To:* Ethan Gruber
> *Cc:* crm-sig
> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
> 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/20200118/35cea29b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Crm-sig
mailing list