I have a followup question to the use of crm:P165i_is_incorporated_in. We have implemented this property to link a Monogram to a representative, idealized SVG URI. In a very narrow subset of cases (maybe only one that I know of so far), a monogram is notable enough to have warranted entry into Unicode, the chi-rho Christogram: ☧
We have a need to define URIs for these Christograms so that we can exploit the constituent letters via P106_is_composed_of in SPARQL. We have at least a few examples of Monograms that consist of both Latin letters and a Christogram, e.g., ?monogram crm:P106_is_composed_of+ "Ρ" #Greek rho So I just want to confirm that a single Unicode character itself is an E73 Information Object, even if this is an unusual implementation. ?monogram crm:P165i_is_incorporated_in "☧" Ethan On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:15 AM Ethan Gruber <ewg4x...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
