I guess it is relevant and fully OK. Thanks, Reinhard
Am 07.11.2012 um 16:47 schrieb Athanasios Velios <[email protected]>: > Again a modest and relatively uninformed contribution on my behalf: > > We have lots of similar issues in the description of bookbinding > structures, where features are missing and the problem is more > complicated than that. > > What you describe could be considered as the condition of the statue: > e.g. missing. You are certain that the statue did exist. As we often do > in conservation, you assessed the statue's condition and concluded that > the whole statue is missing. So the uri should be valid because the > statue existed (and may well still exist). > > The difficulty starts when people want to describe a base for which a > statue never existed, say a half-finished base or a test base. The fact > that a statue never existed is now unrelated to condition yet equally > significant. I think the solution to this problem is to create a new > subclass of "base", something like "bases without statues" in your list. > > I hope the above is relevant. > > All the best, > > Thanasis > > On 07/11/12 15:17, Wolfgang Schmidle wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I am working on Arachne's Cidoc representation, and we came across a >> problem with non-existent objects and how to state their non-existence. >> >> A statue may be set up using e.g. a base or a plinth. In Arachne this >> can be specified in a data field called "Aufstellung" ("setup"). One can >> choose a description from a fixed list, for example "Basisplatte" or >> "Fußplatte/Plinthe". Now, we could model it as >> >> E22 (the statue, without setup) P46i forms part of E22 (the statue >> plus the setup) P2 has type E55 Type e.g. "Basisplatte" >> >> but I am told that the setup should be seen as a part of the statue. >> Consequently we are modelling it as >> >> E22 (the statue, including the setup) P46 is composed of E22 (the >> setup) P2 has type E55 Type e.g. "Basisplatte" >> >> However, Aufstellung may also have the value "ohne Basis" ("without >> base"). In this case the second E22 would denote a non-existent object, >> and its Type "ohne Basis" would state the non-existence of this object. >> (If the data field is left empty, we make no statement at all about the >> setup.) >> >> Is this the right way to model it? And is there a problem in RDF with an >> URI for a non-existent object? >> >> Additional question: Does Cidoc have an opinion about the the exact >> meaning of E22 P46 E22 P2 E55 "ohne Basis"? Let's take the word "sheep" >> as an example, where the singular and plural forms are the same: one >> sheep, two sheep. Is it comparable to A) "while most words have a plural >> morpheme, the particular word sheep has none", or B) "for systematic >> reasons we assume that all words have a plural morpheme, but for the >> particular word sheep it is null"? >> >> Thanks, >> Wolfgang >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
