[Crm-sig] Issue 574 HW (was: Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112)

Athanasios Velios thanasis at softicon.co.uk
Tue Jan 25 15:20:04 EET 2022


Dear all,

It turns out that we might also need to worry about P110. The HW for 
both is included here to discuss and vote at the next SIG:

1) Change the range of P112 diminished:

From:

E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To:

E18 Physical Thing


And update the property scope note from:

“This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing 
that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal. Although an 
instance of E80 Part removal activity normally concerns only one 
instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing, it is possible to imagine 
circumstances under which more than one item might be diminished by a 
single instance of E80 Part Removal activity.”

to:

“This property identifies the instance E18 Physical Thing that was 
diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal. Although an instance of 
E80 Part removal activity normally concerns only one instance of E18 
Physical Thing, it is possible to imagine circumstances under which more 
than one item might be diminished by a single instance of E80 Part 
Removal activity.”


2) Update property under the scope note of E80 Part Remove

From:

P112 diminished (was diminished by): E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To:

P112 diminished (was diminished by): E18 Physical Thing


3) Example for E80 diminishing a natural object

the removal of the Porite coral specimen from the Cocos Islands by 
Charles Darwin in April 1836


4) Example for P112 diminished

The coral of the Cocos Islands (E20) was diminished byThe removal of the 
Porite coral specimen by Charles Darwin (E80).


Refs: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/e1bfb1ab-e94e-4e0a-a13c-bc54e03f22e5 
<https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/e1bfb1ab-e94e-4e0a-a13c-bc54e03f22e5>https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html 
<https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html>


Extra HW for P110:


1) Change the range of P110 augmented:

From:

E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To:

E18 Physical Thing


And update the property scope note from:

“This property identifies the instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing 
that is added to (augmented) in an instance of E79 Part Addition.

Although an instance of E79 Part Addition event normally concerns only 
one instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing, it is possible to imagine 
circumstances under which more than one item might be added to 
(augmented). For example, the artist Jackson Pollock trailing paint onto 
multiple canvasses.”


To:

“This property identifies the instance of E18 Physical Thing that is 
added to (augmented) in an instance of E79 Part Addition.

Although an instance of E79 Part Addition event normally concerns only 
one instance of E18 Thing, it is possible to imagine circumstances under 
which more than one item might be added to (augmented). For example, the 
artist Jackson Pollock trailing paint onto multiple canvasses.”


2) Update Class E79 Part Addition:

Reference to property P110:

From

P110 augmented (was augmented by): E24 Physical Human-Made Thing

To

P110 augmented (was augmented by): E18 Physical Thing


Scope note update:

From:

“This class comprises activities that result in an instance of E24 
Physical Human-Made Thing being increased, enlarged or augmented by the 
addition of a part.”

To:

“This class comprises activities that result in an instance of E18 
Physical Thing being increased, enlarged or augmented by the addition of 
a part.”


3) Example for E79 augmenting a natural object:

the carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph on the Culpa tree (Buhrich et al., 
2015)


4) Example for P110:

The carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph (E79) augmentedthe Culpa tree 
(E20). (Buhrich et al., 2015)


Ref: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03122417.2015.11682048 
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03122417.2015.11682048>

Looking forward to comments and the discussion.

All the best,

Thanasis

On 13/12/2021 09:58, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
> In which case I suppose the proposal to discuss at the next SIG is:
>
> 1) change the range of P112 from E24 Physical Human-Made Thing to E18 
> Physical Thing
> 2) fix the reference to the property under the scope note of E80
> 3) add an example to E80 and a corresponding example to P112 for 
> non-man-made things.
>
> Could we assign a new issue number to this?
>
> All the best,
>
> Thanasis
>
> On 05/12/2021 19:44, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Actually the class was also designed for cutting parts from 
>> archaeological objects, natural history stuff etc. We had a long 
>> discussion if, in the very instant, a part is broken from a natural 
>> object, e.g. for sampling, the diminished becomes "human made". We 
>> later ultimately decided that this violates identity criteria of 
>> classes. It just leaves a human-made feature on a natural object.
>>
>> Therefore, we need to revise wherever this logic had been applied 
>> before.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/2021 11:25 PM, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:
>>>
>>> Ahh, thank you, I understand now. Well, the scope notes of the 
>>> various classes and properties should be improved to make that clear 
>>> if it's the case.
>>> And then we would need to have the discussion about how to remove 
>>> fragments from meteorites, so I hope that's _not_ the case :D
>>>
>>> R
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:59 PM Athanasios Velios 
>>> <thanasis at softicon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>     I completely understand the reasoning and I agree that 
>>> intuitively a
>>>     tree with a broken branch is a diminished thing. It is just that 
>>> the
>>>     scope note and all of the examples in E80 Part Removal are for
>>>     Human-Made things so I worry that the class has been designed for
>>>     Human-Made things only, i.e. breaking off the original branch may
>>>     not be
>>>     E80. Part Addition and Part Removal are designed to allow us to 
>>> track
>>>     the use of a component integrated intentionally in multiple
>>>     objects over
>>>     its history, so it may be that a thing needs to be added before it
>>>     can
>>>     be removed. If we care about the tree prior to cutting the branch
>>>     then
>>>     it may be only a modification. Am I taking it too far?
>>>
>>>     Having said that, pushing the property higher in the hierarchy,
>>>     although
>>>     I am told we should avoid it in general, in this case it may not
>>>     cause
>>>     too many problems.
>>>
>>>     T.
>>>
>>>     P.S. Amazingly, the inconsistency between the scope note and 
>>> property
>>>     range existed since version 3.4.
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------
>>   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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20220125/298c2b5e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list