Dear All,
ISSUE 191 is still open, I still owe an argument. Here it is:
P31 has modified (was modified by)
Domain: E11 <#_E11_Modification> Modification
Range: E24 <#_E24_Physical_Man-Made_1> Physical Man-Made Thing
Subproperty of: E5 <#_E5_Event_> Event. P12 <#_P12_occurred_in> occurred
in the presence of (was present at): E77 <#_E77_Persistent_Item_1>
Persistent Item
Superproperty of: E12 <#_E12_Production_> Production. P108
<#_P108_produced_%28was_1> has produced (was produced by): E24
<#_E24_Physical_Man-Made_1> Physical Man-Made Thing
E79 Part Addition. P110 augmented (was augmented by): E24 Physical
Man-Made Thing
E80 Part Removal. P112 diminished (was diminished by): E24 Physical
Man-Made Thing
Quantification: many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n)
Scope note: This property identifies the E24 Physical Man-Made
Thing modified in an E11 Modification.
If a modification is applied to a non-man-made object, it is regarded as
an E22 Man-Made Object from that time onwards.
This means that E24 Physical Man-Made Thing does not carry an identity
condition, but that the same Thing changes classification. That would
mean that E24 is nothing else than a type or a phase. Besides the
restriction to E22 being wrong, because modifying a physical feature
should also result in a man-made feature.
On the other side,
E12 Production
Subclass of: E11 <#_E11_Modification> Modification
E63 <#_E63_Beginning_of_Existence> Beginning of Existence
Scope note: This class comprises activities that are designed
to, and succeed in, creating one or more new items.
It specializes the notion of modification into production. The decision
as to whether or not an object is regarded as new is context sensitive.
Normally, items are considered “new” if there is no obvious overall
similarity between them and the consumed items and material used in
their production. In other cases, an item is considered “new” because it
becomes relevant to documentation by a modification. For example, the
scribbling of a name on a potsherd may make it a voting token. The
original potsherd may not be worth documenting, in contrast to the
inscribed one.
...says that E12 marks the beginning of existence of a Man-Made Thing,
albeit a light modification of previous forms:
P108 has produced (was produced by)
Domain: E12 <#_E12_Production> Production
Range: E24 <#_E24_Physical_Man-Made_Thing> Physical Man-Made Thing
Subproperty of: E11 <#_E11_Modification> Modification. P31
<#_P31_has_modified_%28was%20modified%20by%29> has modified (was
modified by): E24 <#_E24_Physical_Man-Made_Thing> Physical Man-Made Thing
E63 <#_E63_Beginning_of_Existence> Beginning of Existence. P92
<#_P92_brought_into_existence%20%28was%20bro> brought into existence
(was brought into existence by): E77 <#_E77_Persistent_Item> Persistent Item
Quantification: one to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:1,1)
Scope note: This property identifies the E24 Physical Man-Made
Thing that came into existence as a result of an E12 Production.
The quantification of P108 makes it clear that an instance of E24 must
come into existence with exactly one E12 Production event.
Hence, modifying an instance of E18 Physical Thing would result in it
becoming an instance of E24 without a Production event, in contradiction
to the scope note of P31.
If we now regard that a non-man-made thing cannot be modified, the first
Modification would have to be declared as a Production Event, in which
case the Genesis process (see CRMSci) of the natural Thing could no more
be associated with the object or feature. All specimen of Natural
History which would not have experienced a substantial conservation
treatment as mummification, would need to be loosely associated via a
Transformation event to their previous state in order to describe their
identity, even though scientific reasoning will be based on everything
except the inventory number scribbled on it.
Further, in case of features which have no complete natural boundaries,
the range of the wondrous identity change of a scratch at the periphery
of a cave is not well-defined.
Finally, if we regard that the scribbling of an inventory number on the
object is creating a man-made feature on a physical thing, we create an
unreasonable ambiguity that this, as first human interaction, changes
the identity of the whole object. On the other side, if some human
finger prints where already left of a meteor stone brought into the
museum, this would have priority in the mysterious identity change and
the scribbling would be only the scribbling and nothing else.
Summarizing, I believe that the identity and coming into existence of a
Physical Man-made thing must not be bound to the fact of an accidental
or intentional Modification of any microscale - this can adequately be
described as adding a man-made feature to the thing (and if not, it is
indeed a production), but must be tied to the functional identity of the
thing, in the same way we describe it for aggregates.
All the 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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
