[Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Mar 23 20:18:57 EET 2021

Dear Francesco,

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 
> measured.
> 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
> Francesco

  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
  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/20210323/df30083e/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list