Robert 1] Of course the superclass constrains the contents of a subclass. 2] I disagree with your contention that E19 contains all aggregates. It contains a subset of all aggregates; that is those that are "made for functional purposes". 3] E78s are not just aggregations of objects they are aggregations of instances of E18 Physical Thing which includes things other than objects like features. 4] The distinctions are Very clear and it would be a logical inconsistency to move E78 so that it was a sub-class either directly or indirectly of only E22 because then you could not have features in a collection. Which would be strange. I am going to bed now SdS
Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail [email protected] LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads -----Original Message----- From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 April 2017 21:17 To: [email protected]; 'Christian-Emil Smith Ore' <[email protected]>; 'crm-sig' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] E78 Collection vs E19 Physical Object Hi Stephen, I don’t follow why the class of the collection affects what can be collected? A curated collection of features is not itself a feature, and hence could be an E22. Could you explain your objection further please? Features are a sub-class of E18, which can be included into either an E78 or E19, as the predicate is defined with E18 as the domain which is the ancestor of both. It would be helpful to clarify the distinction between the two classes: “This class comprises aggregations of instances of E18 Physical Thing” … as P46 comes from E18, that’s no problem, as E19 is a sub-class of E18. “The class also includes *all* aggregates of objects” … in all practicality, this is exactly the same as E78 as P46’s domain and range are E18. The documentation says: All aggregations of objects are E19s. E78s are aggregations of objects. E78s are not E19s. I contend there is a logical inconsistency. Rob On 4/14/17, 12:46 PM, "Stephen Stead" <[email protected]> wrote: E78 is intended to allow a curated collection of features not just of objects and so does not belong as a sub-class of E22. I am unclear what the Identity, Unity, Existence and Substance criteria for a "Set" would be and thus find it difficult to conceive of it being a class. The long list of things that do not fit under E78 suggests that criteria are actually a "real" partition of the world that is in our scope. Many of the things that do not fit are either out-of-scope or are not curated collections or both. In the case that there is something that is both an instance of E19 and E78 then multiple instantiation is the solution not tinkering with the class definitions. CEO's desire to replace 'assembled' might be tackled with "grouped" instead. Not sure, still thinking about it. Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail [email protected] LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads -----Original Message----- From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson Sent: 14 April 2017 17:36 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore <[email protected]>; 'crm-sig' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] E78 Collection vs E19 Physical Object Dear Christian-Emil, all, Yes – I’ve followed 270 over its evolution. To me, there are still two issues not addressed in 270: 1. E78 curated aggregation is not a descendant of the class used for general aggregations E19. 2. There are a lot of aggregations that do not fit into the scope notes. For 1, if it’s accepted as an issue to be solved, then I propose that E78 become a sub-class of E22 Man Made Object Currently E78 is a sub-class of only E24. E22 is a sub-class of both E19 and E24. Thus the simplest change to have E78 descend also from E19 is to move E78 to be a child of the existing E22. Or, more comprehensively, introduce a new class below E19 for Sets, and move P57 to it, then make E78 a child of the new class and of E24. If P57 is intended to be used for more than membership, then it should instead be on E18 along with P46. For 2, I would propose to remove the following text from E78’s scope note: “over time for a specific purpose and audience, and according to a particular collection development plan.” An art dealer’s stock is assembled for a specific purpose, I think curated is appropriate, arguably for the audience of art buyers (which seems a bit meaningless), but unless you count “buy low, sell high” as a collection development plan, it does not fit under E78. Ditto Auction lots, consignments, personal collections, and so forth. Personal collections probably fail the specific purpose clause, unless “my amusement” counts as a purpose. That said, if issue 1 is solved, I would also be happy with simply changing the reference to E19 in the E78 note: From: This is because they form wholes either because they are physically bound together or because they are kept together for their functionality. To: This is because they do not have collection plans that are followed over time. A Collection could be physically bound together. A Collection could be kept together for its functionality. The importance is the management of it, not the physical composition or subjective reason for the particular grouping. Rob On 4/14/17, 4:39 AM, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Robert, The E78 Collection changed name (which of course does not mean anything since the name of a class is just a label and the definition is given by the scope note.) to E78 Curated Holding a year ago (issue 270 resolved in Prato February 2016). The CRM 6.2.2 is not completely updated - unfortunately. The crucial point is: Can an instance of E78 Curated Holding consist of stuff (to use the old term) that is not moved and cannot be moved. The first sentence of the scope note indicates that a curated holding consists of things that are assembled and thus moved (demonstrating that they are physical objects). "This class comprises aggregations of instances of E18 Physical Thing that are assembled..." If this is the case, one may argue that any assembly of physical objects is in itself a physical object. On the other hand there may well be a open air museum where the collection consists of log houses placed in different locations (say, 1 kilometer apart) but curated collectively. It may be somewhat artificial to model such a collection as a single physical object. However, I agree that the word 'assembled' may cause confusions. If you agree that my collection of log houses should not be modeled as a single physical object, could you suggest a better formulation in the scope note? Best Christian-Emil ******************************************** E78 Curated Holding Subclass of: E24 Physical Man-Made Thing Scope note: This class comprises aggregations of instances of E18 Physical Thing that are assembled and maintained (“curated” and “preserved,” in museological terminology) by one or more instances of E39 Actor over time for a specific purpose and audience, and according to a particular collection development plan. Typical instances of curated holdings are museum collections, archives, library holdings and digital libraries. A digital library is regarded as an instance of E18 Physical Thing because it requires keeping physical carriers of the electronic content. Items may be added or removed from an E78 Curated Holding in pursuit of this plan. This class should not be confused with the E39 Actor maintaining the E78 Curated Holding often referred to with the name of the E78 Curated Holding (e.g. “The Wallace Collection decided…”). Collective objects in the general sense, like a tomb full of gifts, a folder with stamps or a set of chessmen, should be documented as instances of E19 Physical Object, and not as instances of E78 Curated Holding. This is because they form wholes either because they are physically bound together or because they are kept together for their functionality. Examples: the John Clayton Herbarium the Wallace Collection Mikael Heggelund Foslie’s coralline red algae Herbarium at Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, Trondheim, Norway ********************************************** E19 Physical Object Subclass of: E18 Physical Thing Superclass of: E20 Biological Object E22 Man-Made Object Scope note: This class comprises items of a material nature that are units for documentation and have physical boundaries that separate them completely in an objective way from other objects. The class also includes all aggregates of objects made for functional purposes of whatever kind, independent of physical coherence, such as a set of chessmen. Typically, instances of E19 Physical Object can be moved (if not too heavy). In some contexts, such objects, except for aggregates, are also called “bona fide objects” (Smith & Varzi, 2000, pp.401-420), i.e. naturally defined objects. The decision as to what is documented as a complete item, rather than by its parts or components, may be a purely administrative decision or may be a result of the order in which the item was acquired. Examples: John Smith Aphrodite of Milos the Palace of Knossos the Cullinan Diamond Apollo 13 at the time of launch ***************************************************** ________________________________________ From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Sanderson <[email protected]> Sent: 14 April 2017 04:20 To: 'crm-sig' Subject: [Crm-sig] E78 Collection vs E19 Physical Object Dear all, A question completely unrelated to states, I promise ( E78 Collection is described as: “This class comprises aggregations of instances of E18 Physical Thing that are assembled and maintained …” And E19 Physical Object’s scope note says: “The class also includes *all* aggregates of objects made for functional purposes of *whatever kind*, …” (emphasis added) However E78 is not a descendant of E19 … they are both independent descendants of E18. So every E78 Collection must also be, explicitly, an E19 Physical Object? This seems like a bug in the class hierarchy? And regardless of the hierarchy, if there is a set of objects that are not “physically bound together or […] kept together for their functionality” (hence not E19), but do not have a “particular collection development plan” (hence not E78 either) … how should they be modeled? Examples include auction lots, the set of objects that are looked after by an art dealer (but without a development plan), and similar. Many thanks! Rob _______________________________________________ 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
