Dear All,
As a general remark, proposing different semantics for avoiding punning
should never be done. It would put syntax over meaning, and that is the
hell of semantic incompatibility since the invention of databases, and
the reason why formal ontologies were invented. Multiple instantiation
is an official feature of RDF, and the only means to reduce the
declaration of all class combinations up-front, impossible in an
open-world, and without telling the world something new. Only semantic
clarity warrants a long validity of an ontology and its applications.
So, the question should be, is it "composed of" or "incorporates". I
basically follow the reasoning George provided. It is much up to the point.
The actual discussion, if "Mark" is the "ur-image" or not, took place in
Washington for the first versions of the CRM. It is definitely the
"ur-image". The argument was that museums have identifiers in reference
documents for them, and want to link directly. At that time, providing a
digital image as intermediate was still exotic. Also, experts talking
about the "same" mark, in contrast to an "identical" mark, would refer
to the ur-image and its identifier.
We should add that to the scope note of E37. We thought the examples
would render the distinction:-[
We may be relaxed about the symbolic composition of a monogram, and
regard it to be composed of other symbols. (Letters *ARE* E90 Symbolic
Object, not linguistic objects).
We should be more precise, and regard that the letters "P X" are
"incorporated", because the graphical ideal is not a sum of its parts,
but a particular image.
In George's graph, the chain should be: Physical Feature - is
represented by Image - incorporates Mark - (is represented by SVG...),
Mark is identified by "Reference Code"...
If there are Mark variants, they would still be "ur-images" of each
variant, still Marks.
Opinions?
Best,
martin
On 1/16/2020 10:21 PM, Ethan Gruber wrote:
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
<mailto: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
<mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Ethan Gruber
<ewg4x...@gmail.com <mailto:ewg4x...@gmail.com>>
*Date: *Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 9:59 AM
*Cc: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>"
<crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
cid:16e4b932ae91cc3c9f51
Thanks,
Ethan
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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.*
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
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: mar...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
