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

Sat Jan 29 20:32:10 EET 2022

Yes, this is a fine point and I struggled to find an example for such a 
case of P111. However there is also this:

https://www.demilked.com/bronze-hand-squeezed-trees-sculpture-giuseppe-penone/

which is rare but matches the case?

T.

On 29/01/2022 17:48, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig