As in physics, you can know either the state of objects in the universe or the
forces that act upon them, but never both ( The proposal takes the former as
more valuable for the work that we are attempting to do – describe the state of
objects in our care either for conservation purposes or for simple descriptive
purposes. The CRM seems to try to model the ephemeral forces, to the exclusion
of the things being acted upon.
By which I mean that E11 Modification enables the description of the
transforming force (the opening of the lid) but does not allow the
identification of the resulting state.
_:LidOpening a Modification ;
has_type <lid-opening> ;
has_modified <box> ;
carried_out_by <conservator> ;
had_specific_purpose _:measurement1, _:measurement2 ;
has_timespan <time> .
_:measurement1 a Measurement ;
measured <box> ;
observed_dimension _:height .
_:height a Dimension ;
has_type <height> ;
has_value 20 ;
has_unit <inches> .
_:measurement2 a Measurement ;
measured <box> ;
observed_dimension _:width .
_:width a Dimension ;
has_type <width> ;
has_value 15 ;
has_unit <inches> .
We have described the forces … the actions … of lid-opening and measuring, and
linked the observed dimensions … but nowhere is there an entity that IS the box
with its lid open. We need to understand the LidOpening action’s purpose in
order to deduce that the measurements, although they are of the box, pertain to
some un-identified state of that object. We do not have anywhere to associate
even a label “Box with Lid Open” with those measurements.
We would not want to say that the opening of the lid somehow destroyed
Box-with-Lid-Closed and created Box-with-Lid-Open (e.g. E81 Transformation is
not appropriate)
Rob
On 4/11/17, 7:13 AM, "martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Robert,
The point I try to make is that we are easily confusing reality with
description, and partial knowledge with reconstruction of what is in
between:
To my understanding, the very existence of a state is an intellectual
working back from the parameters of the observation.
Whereas the reality does not change, things evolve, move, interact as
they do, the definition of state thereupon changes with the definition
of the properties we apply to describe these things. The objective thing
is the observation, the "state" an extrapolation of the latter. To start
constructing a state, which in the sequence is observed, turns to my
opinion things upside down. The lid is removed in the course of the
measurement in order to measure thedimension without lid, and it was not
observed that the lid was removed before the observation. The latter has
a completely different status, a "criminalistic one": Who put down the lid?
Once the state is produced by the activity to measure, it does not have
an ontological identity of its own.
Further, all the positions the lid can have wrt the container are
continuous in space. The is nothing to mark
a specific position which everybody would recognize as being distinct
from all others. Only by specifying artificially a position range as
"lid open", it can be described and observed. Any definition of
"lid-open-ness" produces another state on the very same unambiguous
reality. Measuring the container without the lid may not even require
removing the lid at all.
Therefore, I'd say your solution is not as effective or necessary to
describe the respective measurement.
"States" are a "treacherous" concept in a world which we all very well
know is never anywhere at rest. The art of ontology engineering is using
the concepts that produce the most robust identities as reference under
change of context and purpose, and not what we regard as the most
analytical ones. We are all tempted in this culture to try to describe
the world exhaustively by atomic elements, but no one has ever succeeded
to do so ;-).
Comments?
Best,
Martin
On 11/4/2017 2:18 πμ, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> A clearer example, reversing the for_state predicate, demonstrating it
follows the same pattern as parts:
>
> X a ManMadeObject ;
> label “Chest” ;
> was_in_state S ;
> composed_of P .
>
> S a State ;
> label “A particular state of X”
> has_type <lid-open-ness> ;
> has_timespan T ; // when X was in this State
> has_dimension D ;
>
> D a Dimension ;
> label “Height of X with lid open” ;
> has_value V ;
> has_unit U .
>
> P a PhysicalObject ;
> label “Lid of X”
> has_dimension D2 .
>
> D2 a Dimension ;
> label “Height of Lid of X”
> has_value V2 ;
> has_unit U2 .
>
>
> On 4/5/17, 6:08 PM, "Robert Sanderson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Martin, as always :)
>
> So I agree completely, but we seem to have come to different
conclusions?
>
> The way I think about the procedure is as follows:
>
> X is an object.
> At time T, X was in a state S.
> When in state S, object X was measured.
> The measurement activity M, performed by actor A, resulted in a
dimension D, with value V and unit U.
>
> And for the majority of these capital letters I can trivially assign
CRM classes … other than state S.
>
> X: the box (Man Made Object)
> T: 2015-09-10 (TimeSpan)
> S: upright, lid open (?????)
> M: the activity (Measurement)
> A: curator ( Person)
> D: the Dimension with P2 of height (Dimension)
> V: 14 (Number)
> U: inches (Unit)
>
> Or something like …
>
> X a ManMadeObject ;
> has_state S ;
> has_dimension D .
>
> S a State ;
> label “Lid Open” ;
> has_type (external Type for lid-open) ;
> timespan T .
>
> D a Dimension ;
> has_type <height> ;
> for_state S ;
> has_value 14 ;
> has_unit U .
>
> (and add in the Measurement activity in the obvious way, if desired)
>
> I agree that we should not try to catalog the vocabulary level of
all possible states of all possible types of object (!!) but it seems to me
(and I believe to others) like a valid concern with practical use cases and
requirements, that a simple P2_has_type on the Dimension would not be
sufficient to solve.
>
> Rob
>
> On 4/5/17, 11:41 AM, "martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Deasr Robert,
>
> No, the issue is very serious. The Dimension is ultimately
determined by
> the procedure.
> "Height with box open" is not a label, but the very type of
dimension.
> This is not a work around.
> It is a substantial understanding of what a dimension is.
"height" is
> not a dimension. It has not verifiable identity condition.
>
> Using P2 has type must never be interpreted as "little regard",
but as a
> need for further standardization.
> But I am sorry I do not see a way to formalize in another way the
> potential complexity of measurement procedures. When they become
> comparable, they must be categorical, and then they form a type.
If you
> cannot agree on standard measurement procedures, you cannot
compare
> results, isn't it? At least my understanding as an experimental
> physicist by education;-)
>
> All the best,
>
> martin
>
>
> On 3/4/2017 10:35 μμ, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> > Thanks Martin :)
> >
> > If I understand correctly, both the type of dimension (height
vs width) and the state of the object being measured (lid-open vs lid-closed)
would both end up as external P2_has_type URIs?
> >
> > _:h a Dimension ;
> > label “Height of the box with the lid open” ;
> > has_type <height> , <lid-open> ;
> > has_value 14 ;
> > has_unit <inches> .
> >
> > And as the width doesn’t change depending on <lid-open> or
<lid-closed> ness:
> >
> > _:w a Dimension ;
> > label “Height of the box with the lid open” ;
> > has_type <width> , <lid-open>, <lid-closed> ;
> > has_value 8 ;
> > has_unit <inches> .
> >
> > It seems a little jarring to have a core museum activity being
treated with (from my perspective) little regard, compared to some of the
existing distinctions made between classes with very little practical value.
When the <height> and <lid-open> URIs are not understood, let alone the unit
URI, the only thing the ontology actually captures is the value… and as E60 can
be a string, there’s not all that much value (ha!) there either.
> >
> > When the answer to all questions is “Just put it in P2”,
doesn’t that give one pause that P2 is so broad as to be meaningless?
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > On 4/3/17, 12:16 PM, "martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Robert,
> >
> > The standard way to describe this in the CRM is to type
the Dimension
> > with the procedure:
> > a) Lid-open
> > b) Lid-closed
> >
> > The Measurement procedure type can be documented by a
detailed text.
> >
> > In biology, one would measure "wingspan at life" and
"winspan dead" of a
> > bird, etc.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > martin
> >
> > On 3/4/2017 7:13 μμ, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > One of our use cases which we are having trouble
modeling with just the core CRM ontology is measurements of an object in a
particular state. For example, we would like to record the measurements of a
chest with the lid open, rather than those with the lid closed. It is the same
object, just in two different states, resulting in different measurements.
> > >
> > > The proposed scope note does certainly clarify more
than the rather terse original, but if there is any feedback or guidance as to
the above situation, we would be greatly appreciative.
> > >
> > > Many thanks,
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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 |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
