Dear Franco,
I widely agree with your judgement. Here my proposal:
On 4/8/2016 4:28 πμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
Hi all CRMers.
Quoting from FORTH’s presentation at CAA2016 "Methodological tips for mappings to
CIDOC CRM” by Bruseker, Dakalaki, Doerr & Theodoridou:
"A class is not declared unless it is required as the domain or range of a property
not appropriate to its superclass, or it is a key concept in the practical scope"
Too many negations. I would restate it as follows (not + not = yes):
(R) A class is declared if, and only if, either or both of the following
applies:
(R1) it is required as the domain or range of a property inappropriate to its
superclass, or
(R2) it is a key concept in the practical scope
Do we agree on that? I do.
I agree with the rules, but only with the "only if", a class may not be
declared for other reasons as well,
we actually have more reasons not to declare a class.
In light of the above rule, let’s check the subclasses of E41. Below I state
“Remain” if (R) applies, “Leave” if it does not and we can get rid of the
subclass with no damage. It sounds sort of Brexit, let’s call it CRMxit ;-)
E42 Identifier - Remain. Reason: (R2), identifiers are an essential part of the
game, otherwise what’s a PID? Uniqueness is also an (R1) reason.
I vote the same, actually also (R1) holds, because Identifiers do have
incoming properties P37, P38, and in FRBRoo R8.
E44 Place Appellation - Remain. Reason: mainly (R2) but also (R1). Killing it
would kill also E48. Don’t destruct gazetteers. If you want to know more, see
my forthcoming paper on the Pleiades mapping, draft available on request - but
after I return from summer holidays. BTW I like quoting (and advertising)
myself since usually nobody else does.
I vote the same.
E45 Address - Neutral, but preferably Leave. Due to the many aspects an address
may take, no uniqueness, semantic irrelevance. Qualification with E55 Type
“Address” is enough. Who cares about addresses? Only the mailman. Not decidedly
for Leave because Address is an everyday concept, somehow superseded by the
possibility of receiving everywhere (nowhere) communications by email, SMS,
whatsapp and the like. On the other hand, Address as a special case of place
appellation is confusing.
Addresses are particular constructs. As identifiers of a built area, and
as PO box for material mail they are by construct unambiguous compared
to other identifiers. No other identifiers will look like.
As Contact Point seems they seem to identifiers of services, electronic
or physical, which know how to resolve to the physical (machine or
people) behind.
Don't forget the URL resolution of an internet service provider. I vote
for REMAIN, and study the meaning of "service".
E46 Section Definition - Uncertain, more towards Remain. Requires additional
thought as in CRMarcheo and CRMba. If I remember well, used also in CRMsci.
I vote for LEAVE. It had always been confused with types of parts. Not
used in CRMsci, if I am not wrong. To be checked.
E47 Spatial Coordinates - Remain. (R2), too important for CRMgeo to let it go.
Also (R1) as they can be fed into further processing after they are identified
by Type: long-lat, google maps,
I agree.
chess coordinates "Queen in a1 - checkmate"; (but what about “Bishop’s pawn ahead by
two", the second move of a Queen’s gambit; it’s a diversion, forget it)
Sure. mathematical spaces are not physical spaces. E47 applies only to
earth. Principle of "bottom up" development. When we understand virtual
spaces better, we may generalize. See also METS <area> concept
for addressing parts of information objects.
E48 Place Name - Remain, of course, see above comment about E44. Place names
are the quintessence of spatial reasoning about old texts that did not use
coordinates but just names, so (R1) + (R2).
Here I am not sure, because the "Place Name" is normally a Physical
Feature name. All the ambiguity of name versus type of named item comes
up again, and the temporal indeterminacy of the feature in contrast to
place. I'd rather vote for LEAVE. I do not see an (R1)?
Not relevant if places are named after people living there, as in ancient Norway and probably in ancient everywhere. Here in Italy there are many place names like “Case Passerini” near Florence, the current location of a waste treatment plant (the right location for future, 30th century archaeological investigations), which is clearly named after a Passerini family nobody knows about. Also, typical English use: “Let’s see at Martin’s for dinner” with the genitive (possessive) used as locative like in some cases in Latin.
Exactly, the locative case disambiguates the type of the referred. So,
we can introduce a E53 Place P1 is identified by Appellation, without
causing any ambiguity, isn't it?
E49 Time Appellation - Remain!!! Both for (R1) and (R2).
I agree, for time expressions and rulership names used globally as time.
How could archaeologists dispense with named periods? There are plenty of papers
(including some of mine) dealing with time period name resolution. Killing E49 would
destroy archaeological documentation, how could archaeologists writing papers
without mentioning “Upper Eneolithic” or “Early Classic Cypriot IV".
But the latter are names of E4 Period, and not Time Appellations. Just
an E4 Period is identified by....
E50 Date - Perhaps Remain but not strictly necessary, personally I would be for
Leave. In my opinion it is a pseudo-concept. i would prefer to distinguish
between time-stamp if precise to some granularity level (year/day/hour and
minutes as in ISO8601), and a Time Appellation with type date if not. Is
“Martin Doerr’s birth day” a date? according to the E50 scope note, it seems to
be, in the CRM world at least. But practical, everyday use may suggest Remain.
I suggest LEAVE. The distinction to Time Appellation is not sufficient
I'd argue.
E75 Conceptual Object Appellation - Uncertain, Revise. The scope note is unpleasant,
it looks more an identifier than an appellation. "Pythagora’s theorem” is the
name (= appellation) of the theorem everybody knows, but it is uncertain if it is an
E75, probably not.
I propose a LEAVE. Exactly because what we are interested in, ISBN
numbers etc., are Identifiers.
E82 Actor Appellation - Leave. Scope note unpleasant: "any sort of name,
number, code or symbol characteristically used to identify an E39 Actor”. How do I
know it is an E39 Actor, itself an imprecise (Bernini’s Fountain in Piazza di Spagna
heavily damaged in 2015 by hooligan Feyenoord supporters, are these an E39? or only
the temporary grouping of the unidentified ones who actually did it?) but
unfortunately necessary concept? “Characteristically”? Come on...
Bye bye E82.
I vote the same.
E51 Contact Point - Leave. Irrelevant, bureaucratic, pernickety, unnecessary,
indeterminate. Is this an official job, like “What is your job at FORTH? I am
an E51 contact point! Ah, great, you must earn a good salary for that”. Also
Amazon believes I am [email protected] for my family's purchases, and
I started thinking the same (my cat does as well, she’s going to send emails
when hungry). Resolved with Type, same as with other more important
qualifications as director, curator etc or email, skype-nickname, etc.
I vote REMAIN, until we have understood the nature of *communication
services*.
E35 Title - Remain. Of course. An E41 Appellation (Leonardo’s Masterpiece) is not a Title
(Mona Lisa), it is just an Appellation. However, there are two titles for this painting,
one used in English (Mona Lisa) and one in Italian and French (La Gioconda, La Joconde),
not translations of each other. This is not forbidden by the scope note, but perhaps
stating that title uniqueness (beyond straight literal translation) is not implied, would
clarify. This applies to other works as well, typically to movies sometimes weirdly
re-titled by distributors in different countries. Since the scope note mentions that also
the translation of a Title is a Title, adding that also the non-translation of a Title
may be a Title would not hurt. Otherwise some people could think that “Mona Lisa” is
“THE" title, while it is only “A" title. Don’t call it the English Title,
classes cannot have qualificative adjuctoves.
By the way what is a “work”, the term used in the scope note of E35? Why not calling
it an E71 Man-made Thing, as it is? One has to go through the scope note of P102 has
title, to discover it. If “work" is defined elsewhere, call it properly by
name, not generically.
This would re-open an old issue: is the Title,
(a) the Title of the material object (E24), identified by Louvre inventory no.
779 hanging on the wall in room 6 of first floor at Louvre named (titled?) La
Salle de La Joconde; or
(b) the Title of the immaterial object (E28), of which the above-mentioned
painting Louvre id 779 and on display at the Louvre, is the (one?)
materialization; or
(c) both (a) and (b).
Interesting question. The scope note says: "Titles may be assigned by
the creator of the work itself, or by a social group. "
Appellations in general are not unique. There are enough Martin in the
world, including bird species, plane models, first names, last names.
Why restrict?
Easy (?) question for an ancient, unique painting, less easy for multiples -
maybe before answering you may wish to read Walter Benjamin’s “The work of art
in the Age of Mechanical Reproducibility”. Without much thinking on it, I would
go (gut-feelingly) for (b). But I am going off-topic, let’s keep this
discussion for another time. Possible external references, e.g. to FRBR, should
however be mentioned in the scope note.
Enough for you, the survivors of a SIG meeting; thanks to those who had the
patience of reading up to here. For all, time for holidays now.
Thank you for your arguments!
martin
All the best
Franco
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
Il giorno 03 ago 2016, alle ore 07:42, Christian-Emil Smith Ore
<[email protected]> ha scritto:
The sub classes of appellation, e.g. actor appellation and place appelletion were introduced in crm around 2001-2002. At that time there was a view that there were special characteristica for place name and actor names which made it possible to detect and differenciate between them. This has been proven to be a not correct assumption.
In pre industrial societies, at least in Norway, the name and the "address"
were mixed.
The subclasse tree of E41 is
E41 Appellation
E42 -
Identifier
E44 -
Place Appellation
E45 -
- Address
E46 -
- Section Definition
E47 -
- Spatial Coordinates
E48 -
- Place Name
E49 -
Time Appellation
E50 -
- Date
E75 -
Conceptual Object Appellation
E82 -
Actor Appellation
E51 -
Contact Point
E45 -
- Address
E35 -
Title
Do we really want to delete all but E35 Title, E45 Address and E47 Spatial
Coordinates?
Best
Christian-Emil
From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of martin
<[email protected]>
Sent: 02 August 2016 19:28
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] E82 Actor Appellation Issue
I also vote for complete removal, together with all others except for Title, address and coordinates
On 2/8/2016 11:30 πμ, Stephen Stead wrote:
The scope note and examples of E82 Actor Appellation do not clearly convey the
idea that the appellation must be of a form that is characteristically an
appellation of an actor. This is causing confusion in the user community.
One alternative is to retire E82 altogether and the other is to update the
scope note.
I would vote for deprecation/retirement.
I have also suggested a new scope note and changed examples:-
E82 Actor Appellation
Subclass of: E41 Appellation
Scope note: This class comprises any sort of name, number, code or symbol characteristically used to identify an E39 Actor.
An E39 Actor will typically have more than one E82 Actor Appellation, and instances of E82 Actor Appellation in turn may have alternative representations. The distinction between corporate and personal names, which is particularly important in library applications, should be made by explicitly linking the E82 Actor Appellation to an instance of either E21 Person or E74 Group/E40 Legal Body. If this is not possible, the distinction can be made through the use of the P2 has typemechanism.
Examples:
§ “John Doe”
§ “Doe, J”
§ “the U.S. Social Security Number 246-14-2304”
§ “the Artist Formerly Known as Prince”
§ “the Master of the Flemish Madonna”
§ “Raphael’s Workshop”
§ “the Brontë Sisters”
§ “ICOM”
§ “International Council of Museums”
E82 Actor Appellation
Subclass of: E41 Appellation
Scope note: This class comprises any sort of name, number, code or symbol characteristically used to identify an E39 Actor. That is the very form of the name indicates that it is an appellation of an instance of E39 Actor.
An E39 Actor will typically have more than one E82 Actor Appellation, and instances of E82 Actor Appellation in turn may have alternative representations. The distinction between corporate and personal names, which is particularly important in library applications, should be made by explicitly linking the E82 Actor Appellation to an instance of either E21 Person or E74 Group/E40 Legal Body. If this is not possible, the distinction can be made through the use of the P2 has typemechanism.
Examples:
§ the U.S. Social Security Number “246-14-2304”
§ UK Company Number “2374216”
§ Leonardo da Vinci’s ULAN identifier “ULAN500010879”
Rgds
SdS
Stephen Stead
Director
Paveprime Ltd
35 Downs Court Rd
Purley, Surrey
UK, CR8 1BF
Tel +44 20 8668 3075
Fax +44 20 8763 1739
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail [email protected]
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
