[Crm-sig] ISSUE 463: Scope note of E37 Mark

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Jun 11 21:39:48 EEST 2020


Dear All,

I revise the intent, following Robert's concerns that it may be 
interpreted as a restriction rather than as an illustration of typical use:

*NEW*

Scope note:         This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or 
short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by 
arbitrary techniques, *often* in order to indicate such things as 
creator, owner, dedications, purpose or to communicate information 
generally. 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.

Best,

Martin

On 1/17/2020 6:22 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
>
> 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  


-- 
------------------------------------
  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/20200611/8185e796/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list