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

Ethan Gruber ewg4xuva at gmail.com
Mon Jan 20 01:31:58 EET 2020


A short text on a physical object is always an inscription. Whether or not
it's a mark (according to the current definition in the ontology) probably
depends on a greater level of specialized knowledge.

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:04 PM Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu> wrote:

>
>
> From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s on a
> physical object … how can I know when that should be a Mark+Linguistic
> Object, or when it is an Inscription?
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <
> martin at ics.forth.gr>
> *Date: *Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM
> *To: *"crm-sig at ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>
>
>
> I understand the following:
>
>
>
> This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that
> are not inscriptions.
>
>
>
> This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are
> also Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other
> Linguistic Objects among the Marks.
>
>
>
> It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor make such
> statements in the CRM.
>
>
>
> I also do not see a particular utility in this statement.
>
>
>
> All other rules A-D provided by Robert  appear to be correct.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>
> E37 Mark             E33 Linguistic Object
>
>      |                                   /
>
> E34 Inscription
>
>
>
>
>
> ​​E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>
>
>
> The sentence is difficult to understand.  I try.
>
> Pr defintion:
>
> All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions are
> (instances of E33) Linguistic Objects.
>
> The only difference between E34 Inscription and  E37 Mark is that E34 is a
> restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are  instances of  E33
> Lingustic Object that is has a language.  Most sequences of letters and
> signs do not have a language.
>
>
>
> C-E
>
>
>
> *From:* Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>
> <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr
> <martin at ics.forth.gr> <martin at ics.forth.gr>
> *Sent:* 18 January 2020 13:59
> *To:* crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>
>
>
> 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>:
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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>
> *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
> *To: *Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu>, crm-sig <
> 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>
> <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr
> <martin at ics.forth.gr> <martin at ics.forth.gr>
> *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM
> *To: *crm-sig <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> <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
>
>  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
>
>
>
> *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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *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/20200119/70b0eafc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list