Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber <[email protected]
<mailto:[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
*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
*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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
