Absolutely!
I have pointed out in several meetings and talking
to Nicola Guarino, who has first described identity criteria in
Formal Ontologies, that we need a better theory of that and
actual identity criteria for specific classes. Nicola only states
that there are criteria, but not which ones hold for a specific
type.
I assume there will be a relatively smal set of patterns.
This is brand new research, a topic of applied philosophy as
it appears. We should discuss that in the near future.
Best,
Martin
On 10/10/2015 9:31 πμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
Dear Martin, all
I totally agree with the below. In the end, it is a matter of identity
criteria, which are perhaps beyond the scope of the CRM.
This opens another interesting issue, also possibly beyond the scope of the CRM
but in my opinion not at all irrelevant for sharing data: how do I know that
what you call a Ferrari (e.g. a vehicle) is the same as what I call a Ferrari
(e.g. a collectible)? Perhaps referring to a thesaurus. If so, the use of
thesaurus X, e.g. the (imaginary) one by the Automotive Constructors Guild,
rather than Y, e.g. Getty's AAT, should be explicitly documented, with the data
and not in the attached documentation.
This might ‘absorb’ the issue of characterizing the essential parts that must
be present to consider the object still existing, and in the custody of someone.
Franco
Prof Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
Il giorno 09/ott/2015, alle ore 19:47, martin <[email protected]> ha scritto:
Dear Franco,
I agree - it was not my intention that P49 would be the place to define
identity concepts. I may have been
misunderstood in that matter. P49 and E10 are the only? places in the CRM where
"physical possession" appears.
I just wanted to describe, that Physical Things have different concepts of
identity. It is task of each type of E18 to define its own identity conditions.
So, the Ferrari as a functional instrument in traffic has identity conditions,
and the Ferrari that got a museum exhibit it has other ones (it may loose te
chassis number), and the transition is fuzzy, as always. Therefore we describe
this by a transformation event - change of identity under preservation of some
structured matter - or - the set of things described in the object record in
the museum have been parts of theFerrari when admitted for traffic. See. e.g.,
what Enola Gay became when it was turned into a museum exhibit. So, when
talking about what part of the matter/ molecules of the thing I should have
under control to make the physical possession of a thing unambiguous, I just
wanted to say it should not contradict to the way the type this thing belongs
to requires identification. If someone wants to instantiate P49 unambiguously,
it is a recommendation that he also defines the meaning of a representative
part, portion or segment for that thing. If he does not, the KB may end up with
the same object being at different places at the same time, not a pleasant
conclusion. This is a hint against a bad practice that may exist in some
museums having a small sherd and documenting it as if it were the whole
original.
Would you agree on that?
Cheers,
Martin
On 6/10/2015 5:49 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
Dear Martin,
I slightly disagree. You cannot put the burden of the identity criteria of the
E18 on P49, which simply associates the E18 to its custodian. Of course, if E18
ceases to exist (as such), there is no issue and nothing to keep in custody.
The matter of the identity criteria is slippery. Simon’s Ferrari would exist
and perhaps (P49) have a custodian, according to the law as regards civil
responsibility, in this case identity relates to the permanence of the chassis
number; as a collectible, the identity criteria might be totally different,
probably requiring requiring original pieces.
Theseus’ ship identity depends on the regulations of the Ship Registry of
Athens in the 3rd century BC, or whenever it was.
Cutlery - which is **possibly** an E78 collection - is again different. Think
of a set of glasses that are more subject to changes compared with metal spoons
and forks: you start with 12, then they break, one tonight, another one
tomorrow, and so on. For how long would you consider them a set and not just
spare glasses?
So, don’t ask poor P49 to help, it is an overwhelming task for it.
Franco
Prof Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
Il giorno 05/ott/2015, alle ore 19:47, martin <[email protected]> ha scritto:
Dear Simon,
Your argument well taken, I hope I have not been misunderstood: In the case of
the 12 spoons, forks, and knives, one may argue that as long as the majority of
parts is in the hands of the curator, he has keept it, even if every piece has
temporarily left his hands. This is different from marking the chassis. One
could even allow for all parts being exchanged, if the object's identity is
defined respectively. I'd regard these as different ways to define a
representative part. I believe they are all acceptable, as long as they do not
come in conflict with the natural concept of identity of the object, and do not
cause ambiguity about who has the object and who the parts. With the cutlery,
indeed someone could be regarded keeper of the whole, and all parts
dissapearing into different hands, leaving the keeper of the whole with nothing
in his hands. I think this should be avoided. Does that make
sense?
Cheers,
Martin
On 5/10/2015 7:07 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:
I would argue that the extreme case is not the set of cutlery, but the Ship of
Theseus- or more practically, the Car of Enzo.
For models such as the 250 GTO, it is very much the provenance in association
with the chassis number that determine the identity over time.
If a vehicle is crashed, then restored without a transfer of custody, any
application of the new scope note may be post hoc.
Simon
On Oct 5, 2015 10:13 AM, "martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear All,
Issue:
P49:
This shortcut supposes the existence of at least one representative part
standing physically for the whole. Discuss knowledge revision process if a
piece taken to be the representative of the whole must be regarded piece of
another. Things kept may have parts in other hands.
A comment should be stated. Steve, MD, Athinak should think together
I propose the scope note addition:
Scope note: This property identifies the E39 Actor or Actors who have or
have had custody of an instance of E18 Physical Thing at some time. This
property leaves open the question if parts of this physical thing have been
added or removed during the time-spans it has been under the custody of this
actor, but it is required that at least a part which can unambiguously be
identified as representing the whole has been under this custody for its whole
time. For instance, in the extreme case of a set of cutlery we may require the
majority of pieces having been in the hands of the actor.
Best,
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:
[email protected]
|
|
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 |
|
Web-site:
http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:
[email protected]
|
|
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 |
|
Web-site:
http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
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 |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
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 |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
