I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks. I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin correspond to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic objects that carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark.
Ethan On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re > discussing: > > > > - A) All Marks are Symbolic Objects > - B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects > - C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects > - D) All Inscriptions are Marks > - E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects > > > > I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are > accurate. > > > > For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic > content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus > either the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be > clearer about the nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a > subclass of Mark. > > > > For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the > Mark class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as > short text implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think > that the scope note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this > issue. Marks should be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there > is a linguistic interpretation of the content, then they should instead be > Inscriptions. > > > > Hope that clarifies! > > > > Rob > > > > *From: *Martin Doerr <[email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM > *To: *Robert Sanderson <[email protected]>, crm-sig < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark > > > > 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]> > <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM > *To: *crm-sig <[email protected]> <[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] > > 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 > > > > *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 > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
