[Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Franco Niccolucci franco.niccolucci at gmail.com
Tue Mar 23 21:35:27 EET 2021


and you may have noticed that I did not vote - I just wanted to stimulate reflection, and I will not bore you anymore. I will reply Martin directly.

Franco

Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus
Technology Director 4CH

Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy


> Il giorno 23 mar 2021, alle ore 19:50, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> ha scritto:
> 
> Dear Martin, Christian-Emil, all,
> 
> In order not to block a development that seems to be largely consensual, and considering that my veto apparently violates the SIG rules, I withdraw it and simply vote NO.
> 
> If the majority thinks that the problem I have pointed to is not a problem and that the inconsistency between previous versions of the CRM and the new one in relation to the substance of this class is not an issue, especially with respect to monotonicity, I personnally have nothing to add.
> 
> With all my best wishes
> 
> Francesco
> 
> 
> 
> Le 23.03.21 à 19:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :
>> 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.
>>> 
>> Firstly, 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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:
>>> 
>>> VETO.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 
>>  
>>  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
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig




More information about the Crm-sig mailing list