[Crm-sig] Issue 511

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Wed Mar 3 12:54:26 EET 2021


Dear Robert,

Yes, exactly.

My argument about measuring non-physical things is that it does not 
constitute an observation process, but an abstraction from observable 
things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such evaluations.

So, we can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 Measurement.

Best,

Martin

On 3/2/2021 11:52 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> Martin wrote in particular:
>   Reduce in CRMbase Mesaurement , P40 observed dimension, to E18 
> Physical Thing. Add 3 different properties “has dimension” in CRMBase 
> to E70 Thing, E53 Place, E4 Period (or E2 Temp Entity).
>
> I agree with your argumentation, and believe that the changes in CRM 
> Base would be:
>
> P39 measured:
>   Range changes from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing
>
> PXX1_has_dimension
>   Domain: E53 Place
>   Range: E54 Dimension
>
> PXX2_has_dimension
>   Domain: E4 Period
>   Range: E54 Dimension
>
> to be cognate with P43 has dimension for E70s.
>
> The question would remain about the measuring of Non-physical Things, 
> such as the number of symbols in a E90 symbolic object... but I don't 
> have that use case, so am happy to leave the discussion to someone 
> that does :)
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:31 PM Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr 
> <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
>
>     **
>
>     *Posted by Robert Sanderson on 9/9/2020*
>
>     I believe that there is an inconsistency in the model for
>     measurements and dimensions.
>
>     E54 Dimensions are associated directly with E70 Things using P43
>     has dimension.  So not every class can have dimensions, only those
>     that are descendents of E70.
>
>     However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1
>     CRM Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot
>     have a dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This
>     seems inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can
>     still be measured.
>
>     I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing
>     to resolve this inconsistency.
>
>     We have to distinguish measurement from dimension. In order to
>     measure something in a narrower sense, I need an observation of
>     something material. Dimensions can also be result of computation,
>     evaluation and estimation (forms of Attribute Assignment).
>
>     If we look at measuring in the narrower sense, we can count the
>     characters of a text on paper, but not the abstract text. The
>     logical representation of a text can be evaluated for its dimensions.
>
>     We cannot measure a place, but features at a place. See also Issue
>     388. But clearly, we can measure duration and extent of processes,
>     and comparing a clock, which provides a duration from the last
>     sync event, with some other transient situation or microevent, in
>     order to calculate absolute time.
>
>     So, we may assign the ability to be observed to E18 physical
>     things and E4 Period, or more narrowly to E5 Event.The ability to
>     be observed appears to need some common ontological nature, a
>     certain materiality interacting with measurable signals. Even the
>     lightning creates a plasma hose lasting some milliseconds. That
>     would need a new class “Observable Entity” as range.
>
>     Otherwise, we may regard measuring physical things and measuring
>     processes *as independent*. Then, we would need *another
>     measurement class*, such as “static measurement” versus “dynamic
>     measurement”.
>
>     Dimensions of other things, such as places in the abstract
>     geometric sense of the CRM, need not be based on a common
>     property. The place can only have diameters and areas as
>     dimentions, and may be some more exotic ones. The dimension in the
>     phenomenal timespan is of course that of the respective period
>     etc. So, my argument being that E53 Place, E52 Time-Span have
>     their own properties with range Dimension, without being regarded
>     as observable (rather results of observation).
>
>     I’d propose the following:
>
>     Reduce in CRMbase Mesaurement , P40 observed dimension, to E18
>     Physical Thing. Add 3 different properties “has dimension” in
>     CRMBase to E70 Thing, E53 Place, E4 Period (or E2 Temp Entity).
>
>     Extent CRMSci by E18, E4 IsA Observable Entity, and extend
>     Mesaurement P40 observed dimension,from E18 to Observable Entity.
>
>     Alternatively, introduce “Dynamic Measurement”in CRMSci.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Martin
>
>
>
> -- 
> Rob Sanderson
> Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
> Yale University


-- 
------------------------------------
  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/20210303/91555e62/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list