I think the version issue is a general problem with CRM documentation,
which is related to the other thread about being able to resolve URIs
consistently. If you go to http://www.cidoc-crm.org/ and click "Current
Version", it's 6.2.3, so I wasn't aware there were any newer ones. Now that
I've found the documentation for the actual latest version, I see that P190
offers the following example:
"The inscription (E34) on Rijksmuseum object SK-A-1601 has symbolic content
“B”"
So I think this would work.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 4:17 PM Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu>
wrote:
>
>
> P190 is in the most recent PDFs since about 6.2.4 or 6.2.5? (In linked art
> it’s mapped to `content`, FWIW).
>
>
>
> Apart from my general disinterest in E37 and E34, I think the scope note
> for E37 could be made more precise … I don’t think that E37 can represent a
> “short text” as text implies language, and E37 is not a subclass of E33
> Linguistic Object. E37 is only visual (a subclass of E36) compared to E34
> which is both.
>
>
>
> That said, you could exchange E33 for E37 in my model, as P190 is a
> property of E90 Symbolic Object, which is in the class hierarchy for all of
> the above options.
>
> The relevant first sentence for P190:
>
> This property associates an instance of E90 Symbolic Object with a
> complete, identifying representation of its content in the form of an
> instance of E62 String
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> *From: *Ethan Gruber <ewg4x...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 12:21 PM
> *To: *Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu>
> *Cc: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] A symbol made of symbols
>
>
>
> Hi Rob,
>
>
>
> I'm not sure that works since we've decided that a monogram is an 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.").
>
>
>
> I think your example doesn't allow us to answer the baseline research
> question of querying for individual letters that comprise a monogram.
>
>
>
> <chi-rho> a crm:E37_Mark ;
>
> crm:P106_is_composed_of "Χ"; #Greek chi
>
> crm:P106_is_composed_of "Ρ" . #Greek rho
>
>
>
> Where is P190 documented? I'm looking at the PDF for 6.2.3, and I'm not
> seeing that property in there. Or, there is a P190, but it's not
> has_symbolic_content.
>
>
>
> Ethan
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:07 PM Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ethan,
>
>
>
> Could you do :
>
>
>
> ?monogram a E33_Linguistic_Object ; crm:P106_is_composed_of ?character .
>
> ?character a E33_Linguistic_Object ; crm:P190_has_symbolic_content “☧” .
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> That would avoid the punning that the chi-rho is both an E33 and a literal
> at the same time.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Ethan Gruber <
> ewg4x...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 9:59 AM
> *Cc: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] A symbol made of symbols
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> [image: cid:16e4b932ae91cc3c9f51]
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ethan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content
> is safe.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content
> is safe.*
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
