Dear all, Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be solved by double instantiation?
All the best, Øyvind > Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber <[email protected]>: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM > To: Robert Sanderson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > crm-sig <[email protected] <mailto:[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]> > <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr > <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM > To: crm-sig <[email protected]> <mailto:[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 <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] <mailto:[email protected]> > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl <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] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > _______________________________________________ > 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
