Hi George, I think this makes a lot of sense. I can use the D1 Digital Object, and this is pretty useful for us as I would like to be able to associate the SVG with the person who created it or other processes of production (derived from a font file, e.g.). I've forwarded to the Nomisma list and hopefully we'll agree and start publishing our monograms online soon.
Thanks, Ethan On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:28 AM George Bruseker <george.bruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ethan, > > Here is my take. > > > > I have a large number (thousands) of monograms that appear on Greek > coinage. There is an SVG file that represents an idealized form of the > monogram. The Nomisma ontology has a nmo:Monogram class, and I am > attempting to link Nomisma more directly as subclasses or subproperties to > CIDOC-CRM ones. A monogram fits the definition of a subclass of > crm:E37_Mark: > > "This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts > applied to instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing by arbitrary > techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, > etc." > > > Yes, it seems the right match. > > > In this sense, if I want to link a monogram to its constituent letters, is > P106_is_composed_of the appropriate property for this? > > For example, I have a URI for a monogram, > http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbol/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3 > > Therefore: > > <http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbol/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3> a > nmo:Monogram ; > crm:P106_is_composed_of "T" ; > crm:P106_is_composed_of "H" . > > > This also seems the right match. If you are not concerned about the > particular form of the letters, then I guess you could make the letters > instances of E90 Symbolic Object. > > etc. > > The next question I have is how do I link this concept of a monogram to > one or more SVG files that represent this monogram? There could be variant > images based on individual styles of die-carvers, but scholars agree these > variations represent the same semantic concept. > > > I am looking at the documentation for P138 represents, and I am having a > difficult time understanding the distinction between the examples where a > digital file (PLY 3D model or a JPEG image) is the E36 Visual Item, but in > other documentation the E36 Visual Item seems more conceptual. > > If a Visual Item is definitionally an E1 CRM Entity, then a Visual Item > can still represent another Visual Item, correct? So: > > <http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbol/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3> a > nmo:Monogram ; > crm:P106_is_composed_of "T" ; > crm:P106_is_composed_of "H" ; > crm:P138i_has_representation < > http://numismatics.org/ocre/symbols/monogram.ric.10.theodosius_ii.3> #svg > file url > > > For the question of relating the instance of Mark (the monograms) to the > SVG, I would do this otherwise. I would take advantage of D1 Digital Object > class for the instances of SVG and their characteristics. [if you won’t > like extensions, then E73 information object] I would then link the > instances of D1 to the individual marks through the p165 > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/P165-incorporates/Version-6.2.1> > incorporation > property which allows one information object to incorporate another. > > For the question of relating one instance of Mark (such that that is > uniquely identifiable from another but which is nevertheless a variant of > the same Mark), you could make use of the p130 > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/P130-shows-features-of/Version-6.2.1> > property > ’shows features of’. It has a property on property that allows you to > specify the kind of similarity. > > I attach an example of the proposed solution as a diagram. I guess the one > part of your problem that it does not address is the ur-imageness of the > one idealization. I guess the ur type did not historically exist but is the > composite based on scholarly research. Therefore it sounds like creation of > a type, see E83 > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Entity/E83-Type-Creation/Version-6.2.1> > Perhaps this is a picture for a type? Or you could make one instance of > Mark which is the ur instance and say that all the other instance are > related to it in particular as variant, but that doesn’t seem correct at > first thought. > > Best, > > George > > > > Thanks, > Ethan > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
