[Crm-sig] 511 e-vote
martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Mar 23 20:18:57 EET 2021
Your concerns well respected, please let me explain a few things:
Firstly, this e-vote is not about the reduction of the range of P39 from
E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing.
The reduction was decided in the last CRM-SIG with good majority after
considering all pros and cons.
Following our rules, a decision once made by the CRM-SIG can only be
undone by raising a new issue, providing new additional arguments.
Therefore, the use of the VETO right should not be used to undo an
orderly decision taken by the SIG.
Nevertheless, let me
On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
> Dear all,
> as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity,
> and more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class
> without changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the
> nominal monetary value of a collection of coins" is now _excluded_.
> So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the
> surface of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place
> for representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place cannot
> be measured ?
> Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check : "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
> I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to
> resolve this inconsistency."
> Because of this argument : "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."
> after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of the
> issue) we vote about the restriction of this same class to a quite
> different substance than the long period one.
> Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract.
> My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is
> Attribute Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I
> partly agree but it seems to me that, given the radical change of
> substance, the consistency of the information produced before version
> 7.??? will be lost.
> So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new substance,
> restricted in the mentioned sense, and deprecate E16 if wished but
> leaving it as is for the sake of consistency of legacy information and
> monotonicity ?
> Given these arguments, I vote:
> All the best
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,
Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig