Hi Dominic, Martin,
Here’s two concrete use cases … how do you suggest that they be described in
CRM?
1. The object is a manuscript and for storage reasons I want to know the
dimensions of it when closed (also this is the typical set of dimensions), and
for exhibition planning reasons I want to know the dimensions of it when open,
so I can lay it out in a display case.
2. The object is a chest with hinged lid that sits, at rest, either completely
open or completely closed. Same reasons as above – I want to display it open,
but store it closed, so need to know the total height of the chest with the lid
closed versus open.
Clearly there are many possible states for these objects that would result in
different measurements – the height of the manuscript would depend on the
number of pages turned, and the lid could be propped open to just about any
height.
The difference with the skyscraper heights is that the skyscraper is not being
manipulated to produce the different dimensions, they’re just heights of
different parts. You could measure and record them separately and calculate the
different totals. The wooden tea caddy is also interesting regarding state …
let me propose a simpler case though:
3. An umbrella can be folded into a cylinder needing length and radius
dimensions, or open into (err…) an umbrella shape probably needing height,
width and depth dimensions.
This case requires two _sets_ of dimensions to go together. Say that it’s a
very carefully constructed umbrella where the appearance when folded is black,
but the appearance when open is multi-colored. Same umbrella in two states,
each of which has multiple properties beyond just dimensions.
If the P2 is the approach for the Dimension … is it also that we’d associate
the same Type with a descriptive text for the color?
(And for all other features we want to describe about the same state?)
Rob
On 4/12/17, 8:18 AM, "Dominic Oldman" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Rob, Martin
A Comment:
Dimension is defined as a measurable extent of any kind. This could be the
distance between two points on an object. I think this is the way it is also
described in the CRM reference, e.g. "This
class comprises quantifiable properties that can be measured by some
calibrated means and can be approximated by values, i.e. points or regions in a
mathematical or conceptual space..."
Skyscrapers tend to have different types of height dimension. For example,
height to tip (where there is a spire or needle), height to architectural top,
height to highest occupied floor. These are all different dimension types
measuring from one point
to another on a building.
However, on the specific example, do I want to describe a state of
'openess' or am I just opening the lid to make it more convenient to measure
the different dimensions of the same box which really hasn't changed - height
to top of closed lid, height
to top of open lid. As Martin mentions the box is specifically opened in
order to take a particular type of dimension measurement. The example of
measuring these dimensions without opening the lid at all e.g taking two
measurements in a closed position and
adding them together) is also an important indicator that we don't really
need to get into a state and I expect for many fragile items the measurement is
done in this way - practically indicating that this is simply a type of
dimension.
I measured my tea caddy this morning. I measured with the "lid on" to the
point where the lid starts and then again to the top of the lid. I then took
the lid off and measured the main body of the caddy again. It was the same
measurement as when the lid
was on! It is the same caddy and the measurement was not affected. When I
took the lid off it didn't really change the properties particularly. The two
measurements, one to the top of the main caddy body and one to the top of the
lid are two different dimensions
of the same thing, like the skyscraper. If the caddy was made of wood then
these measurements might change in different conditions like, for example, heat
and humidity compared to freezing conditions. In this case the same dimensions
might have a different
result but that would be a different situation.
If I could only measure a dimension on the bottom of the box by turning the
box over, is this a dimension of a particular state (i.e. upside down state)? -
perhaps in common usage but this isn't the same as the context we talk about.
I agree that the world is constantly changing (and our understanding of it
changes). However, taking a slightly different line, it is not necessary, in my
opinion, to be exhaustive in order to describe a valid and useful type of
totality. Some things are
more useful than others. I would therefore agree that we need to be
careful about the use of states as this could have quite problematic
implications for which, as Martin says, we are not equipped to deal with and
technology hasn't really helped with (perhaps
made worse), but in any event we don't need.
I think we should update the definition of S16 - its a bit thin but I think
it could be updated to a better state. :-)
D
orcid.org/0000-0002-5539-3126 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5539-3126>
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Robert Sanderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
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 <tel:%2B30%282810%29391625> |
> > Research Director |
Fax:+30(2810)391638 <tel:%2B30%282810%29391638> |
> > | Email:
[email protected] <mailto:[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 <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> |
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625
<tel:%2B30%282810%29391625> |
> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638
<tel:%2B30%282810%29391638> |
> | Email:
[email protected] <mailto:[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 <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> |
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625
<tel:%2B30%282810%29391625> |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638
<tel:%2B30%282810%29391638> |
| Email:
[email protected] <mailto:[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 <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
