Dear Ethan, all, A small contribution to this interesting discussion. As mentioned by Martin, Francesca Murano and I have investigated the linguistic, physical and conceptual aspect of inscriptions and texts in recent years. Our work is oriented towards the construction of an extension of the CIDOC CRM for epigraphy and ancient texts (CRMtex, http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmtex/ <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmtex/>), and we have published our reflections in two papers that I report below for anyone interested (you can also download them from here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CbsRXJ6SdG6JT_QjKmJ98vgklz7Jx4sR <https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CbsRXJ6SdG6JT_QjKmJ98vgklz7Jx4sR>):
1. A. Felicetti, F. Murano, P. Ronzino, F. Niccolucci (2015) CIDOC CRM and Epigraphy: a Hermeneutic Challenge, Paola Ronzino and Franco Niccolucci (eds.): Extending, Mapping and Focusing the CIDOC CRM (CRMEX 2015) Workshop, 19th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL 2015), Poznan, Poland, September 17, 2015. 2. Felicetti, A., Murano, F., (2016), Scripta manent: a CIDOC CRM semiotic reading of ancient texts, «International Journal on Digital Libraries» 17/1, Springer, pp. 1-8, DOI: 10.1007/s00799-016-0189-z In our works we have already highlighted the "weaknesses" of the E34 and E37 classes with respect to epigraphy (see paragraph 4.3 of paper 1 and 4.2 of paper 2), as highlighted by Christian-Emil, and proposed some possible solutions concerning the text and its nature. I paste some excerpts here, and I refer you to reading the papers for more information. Regarding the E34 class, we stated that: "In CIDOC CRM, textual entities are conceived as immaterial, and essentially conceptual, entities. Both the classes E33 Linguistic Object and E34 Inscription belong to the domain of conceptual objects, defined as “non-material products of our minds and other human produced data”, something that renders only in part the essence of what a text is, not taking into account its ‘materiality’ which is a fundamental component of its identity” We did similar considerations for E37. Thus, a written text in our perspective is defined as the product of a semiotic process, involving an encoding (“writing”) and a decoding (“reading”) process. The scope note for the Written Text class says that it is a … “… subclass of E25 Man-Made Feature intended to describe a particular feature (i.e., set of glyphs) created (i.e., written) on various kinds of support, having semiotic significance and the declared purpose of conveying a specific message towards a given recipient or group of recipients” We have submitted a third paper on the subject to the Semantic Web Journal (special issue for Cultural Heritage) and is currently under review. I will also send you references of that if it is approved. Concerning the linguistic value of a text, an excerpt from it is reported below: "Although every speech can be transposed into an equivalent written message, and vice versa, speech has a priority over writing, at least in four respects: phylogenetic, ontogenetic, functional and structural. In fact, all languages are spoken but not necessarily written; every human being learns to speak naturally spontaneously, the ability to write coming only later and through specific training; the spoken language is used in a wider and differentiated range of uses and functions; writing originated as a representation of speech. According to Ferdinand de Saussure [17], in fact, «a language and its written form constitute two separate systems of signs. The sole reason for the existence of the latter is to represent the former». In this semiotic perspective, it is worth considering that even in writing, as in the analysis of the linguistic system, it is necessary to distinguish the concrete level of the personal execution (i.e. the real act of tracing signs on a surface) from the abstract level which all the single occurrences must be took back to, on the basis of a sameness principle (e.g. the identification of an “A”, independently from the peculiar shape somebody gives to it). This, as it is easy to understand, marks a decisive difference with the marks, in which the linguistic aspect is decidedly less marked, even in the presence of monograms and other similar symbols (which remain symbols without phonetic value, although using signs usually devoted to representation of sounds). I hope this helps. However, we are convinced that a thorough revision of classes E34 and d E37 is absolutely necessary. Could this be a topic of discussion at the next SIG? Bests, Achille > Il giorno 20 gen 2020, alle ore 00:31, Ethan Gruber <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > > A short text on a physical object is always an inscription. Whether or not > it's a mark (according to the current definition in the ontology) probably > depends on a greater level of specialized knowledge. > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:04 PM Robert Sanderson <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s on a physical > object … how can I know when that should be a Mark+Linguistic Object, or when > it is an Inscription? > > > > Rob > > > > From: Crm-sig <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Martin Doerr > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM > To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark > > > > I understand the following: > > > > This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that are > not inscriptions. > > > > This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are also > Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other > Linguistic Objects among the Marks. > > > > It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor make such > statements in the CRM. > > > > I also do not see a particular utility in this statement. > > > > All other rules A-D provided by Robert appear to be correct. > > > > Best, > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: > > E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object > > | / > > E34 Inscription > > > > > > E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects > > > > The sentence is difficult to understand. I try. > > Pr defintion: > > All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions are > (instances of E33) Linguistic Objects. > > The only difference between E34 Inscription and E37 Mark is that E34 is a > restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are instances of E33 Lingustic > Object that is has a language. Most sequences of letters and signs do not > have a language. > > > > C-E > > > > From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr > <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: 18 January 2020 13:59 > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark > > > > I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be regarded > Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, translation etc. > No need to make them linguistic objects. > > > > Best, > > > > Martin > > > > On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote: > > 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] > <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 <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] <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] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > <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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> > > > -- > ------------------------------------ > 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
