In Paris we decided to add to the CRM:
Part Addition
subclass of: E11 Modification
added (was added by) : E18 Physical Stuff
added to(was augmented by): E24 Physical Man-Made Stuff
(subproperty of "has modified")
Part Removal
subclass of: E11 Modification
removed (was removed by): E18 Physical Stuff
removed from (was dimished by): E24 Physical Stuff
(subproperty of "has modified")
1. Part Addition:
Scope note: This Entity describes the activities by which a unit of Physical
Man-Made Stuff is increased by a part.
This can be either an accessory or a component, which is more
or less permanently attached
to or integrated into a Physical Object. It can be an element
which is added to an aggregate
of items, like a collection of stamps or a heap of sherds. It
can be an immobile object which
is added to a special collection of immobile objects curated
by some organisation, e.g. caves
with prehistoric findings. The objects added form afterwards
part of a whole clearly identifiable
by independent criteria which justify a common lifecycle of
all parts of that whole - be it because
they are kept together for a certain function, like a set of
chessman, be it because they stick
physically together like a car, or be it because they are
treated, conserved and restaurated together
like a collection of caves (*). The object subject to the
addition is Man-Made, at least due to the
very activity of adding. This Entity is the basis for
reasoning on the continuity of history of objects,
which are integrated or removed without affecting their
internal identity over time, like valuable
antique items or bones of saints being repeatedly integrated
into precious jewelry or containers, but
also museum objects being transferred from collection to
collection.
(* I still feel a bit uneasy about the inclusion of immobiles).
2. added (was added by) : E18 Physical Stuff
scope note: This property links the activity of part addition to the unit of
Physical Stuff becoming part of the
respective whole.
3. added to(was augmented by): E18 Physical Man-Made Stuff
(subproperty of "has modified")
scope note: This property links the activity of part addition to the whole
which is augmented by the new part. As
the former changes due to this act, this property is a
subproperty of "has modified".
4. Part Removal:
Scope note: This Entity describes the activities by which a unit of Physical
Stuff is decreased by a part, which may
in the sequence be documented with an individual identity or
has been documented individually already
before. This can be either an accessory or a component, which
is more or less permanently detached
or removed from a Physical Object. It can be an element which
is taken from an aggregate
of items, like a collection of stamps or a heap of sherds. It
can be an immobile object which
is taken out of special collection of immobile objects
curated by some organisation, e.g. caves
with prehistoric findings. This Entity is the basis for
reasoning on the continuity of history of objects,
which are integrated or removed without affecting their
internal identity over time, like valuable
antique items or bones of saints being repeatedly integrated
into precious jewelry or containers, but
also museum objects being transferred from collection to
collection. In case of cutting or breaking
out pieces, which had no recognizable identity before the
removal, the latter should be regarded as a
combination of Part Removal and production. Cases of
complete decomposition of
a whole into pieces, such that the whole ceases to exist
under the aspect it had been documented,
should be modelled as transformation, i.e. a simultaneous
destruction and production. Similarly, a
dissolution of a collection is a simultaneous part removal
and destruction. It does not imply loss of
an identifiable part. This should be documented by the
Destruction of the respective item.
(* I still feel a bit uneasy about the inclusion of immobiles).
5. removed (was removed by): E18 Physical Stuff
scope note: This property links the activity of part removal to the unit of
Physical Stuff ceasing to be part of the
respective whole.
6. removed from (was dimished by): E18 Physical Stuff
(subproperty of "has modified")
scope note: This property links the activity of part removal to the whole
which is diminished by the new part. As
the former changes due to this act, this property is a
subproperty of "has modified".
7. Collection:
Scope note:
This entity describes an aggregate of items, which is maintained by an Actor
following a plan of cultural relevance
over time. Things may be added or taken out of a collection in pursuit of this
plan. A collection is designed for a
certain public, and the conservation of the collected items is normally catered
for. Collective objects in the general
sense, like a tomb full of gifts, a folder with stamps, a set of chessmen fall
naturally under Physical Object and not
under Collection. They form wholes in the sense that they share a common
lifecycle, either because they physically
stick together, like the folder or the tomb, or because they are kept together
for their functionality, like the chessmen.
Examples for Collection are: The John Clayton Herbarium.
8. is curated by (curates): Actor
scope note: This property links the Collection to the Actor in charge for
maintaining the Collection.
==================================================================================
I was intrigued by the complexity of parts leaving an object. The question, to
which degree a part removal without
human activity exists, is not clear to me, if we take out part destruction, as
I proposed above. I found no reason
to exclude cutting out of pieces, in which case the object is not man-made, and
the removed piece is. I therefore
propose to relax part-removal from Physical Man-Made wholes to Physical wholes
in general. But may be cutting
out of pieces is better seen as using an object as raw material to produce
something?
In any case there are situations, where the individual documentation of a part
begins with the part removal, even though it
existed before in a clearly defined form. So either we take as default for the
creation of a part appearing in a removal
the creation of the whole object, or we assume its creation in the moment of
its removal??
Please comment.
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(810)391609 |
Project Leader SIS | Email: [email protected] |
|
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/proj/isst |
--------------------------------------------------------------
