Dear Robert,
Yes, that is a good question!
For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.
Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a
Linguistic Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.
But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.
However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not
separated out as complement, because following all the discussions we
had in the past, there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished
from inscriptions.
So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider
sense, which are not the codified monograms etc.
isn't it?
best,
martin
On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Dear all,
I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose
also that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short
texts” in a class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It
seems strange to me that Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when
that is clearly text with a language. That would, IMO, need to be E37
Inscription if we wanted to talk about the content / meaning, rather
than just the visual appearance of some symbols. Yet the scope note
for Mark makes assertions about the intent, which implies a semantic
understanding of the language encoded by the symbols.
Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all
inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate
the creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc. Either the “etc”
covers all intents (at which point it is a worthless clause) or there
are some texts that are inscribed on objects that do not count as
inscriptions.
One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” … that does
not seem to fall under the definition of Mark, given the intent
clause. Similarly the “Keep off the grass” sign example is to instruct
the students of Balliol to not walk on the lawn. That seems very
different from a Mark … yet it is one?
Finally, I think there is a minor typo in the new sentence. I think it
should read: … as they are used to codify the marks in reference
documents …
(or something like that)
Many thanks,
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin
Doerr <[email protected]>
*Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM
*To: *crm-sig <[email protected]>
*Subject: *[Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
Dear All,
There were questions about the level of abstraction of E37 Mark.
Therefore I rewrite, following the relevant discussions when this
class was defined. The argument was that it should directly link to
the codes that are used in museum documentation for (registered) marks.
*Old scope note:*
Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or
short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by
arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner,
dedications, purpose, etc.
This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic
significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be
documented as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature.
*NEW*
Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or
short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by
arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner,
dedications, purpose, etc. Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the
actual image of a mark, but the abstract ideal, as they use to be
codified in reference documents that are used in cultural documentation.
This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic
significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be
documented as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature.
Can someone provide a relevant example from an authority document of
marks?
Such as
Castagno, John. /Old Masters: Signatures and Monograms, 1400–Born
1800/. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996.
Caplan, H. H. and Bob Creps. /Encyclopedia of Artists' Signatures,
Symbols & Monograms: Old Masters to Modern, North American & European
plus More; 25,000 Examples/. Land O'Lakes, FL: Dealer's Choice Books,
1999.
--
------------------------------------
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:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
*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.*
--
------------------------------------
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: [email protected]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
