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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Sat Jan 29 19:48:17 EET 2022


Dear Thanasi, all,

I agree with all, except:

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)


I' argue that this example is a production of a human-made feature ex 
initio on the tree. I'd argue that the meaning of E79 is that a 
*pre-existing* thing has been added. Otherwise, it comes in conflict 
with production, and the tracing of things that become part of another 
and then travel with it through the world.

I propose *to modify *the scope note of E79 to make this clear. I think 
cases in which the /P111 added/ thing is not a "Physical Object" can 
only be sort of collections, in which the definition of the whole under 
consideration is expanded to comprise another feature, such as real 
estate properties.

The removal is not completely symmetric. It says that something has been 
removed, but the removed matter may have a unique identity only from the 
time of removal on, and then should be also a Production event.

The inverse, a part addition in which the added part looses its identity 
within the whole it augmented (and then be a destruction event??) may 
probably be too exotic (Frodo's Ring not withstanding).

All the best,

Martin

On 1/25/2022 3:20 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>

-- 
------------------------------------
  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/20220129/ca9579c9/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list