(Snipping to avoid the list’s length filter) I agree that it would be lovely if everyone recorded the measurement activities in detail, including with margins of error. But this isn’t a physics documentation group, it’s museums. That others do it better than we do is great, but doesn’t address the current practice of the domain and its information systems.
That said, the removal of the “true quantity” part of the scope note addresses at least the semantic part of the concern, that it’s currently impossible to abide by the definition. The implementation concern of asserting that two approximations are related can be considered separately 😊 Rob From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr <[email protected]> Date: Friday, October 18, 2019 at 10:26 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Approximate Dimensions I think there’s some very similar practice however of providing multiple values for the same dimension, that at least are roundings from the same measurement. I wold see this as different. Measurements use some device and procedure. Properly document, we understand their behaviour. A spot marked on a map near something has no particular procedure associated. For example the Met’s descriptions have “H. 14 5/16 in. (36.4 cm)” and similar [1], ours are the other way around “23 x 16.5 cm (9 1/16 x 6 ½ in.)” [2] as does MFA Boson [3], the NGA [4] and many others. With P90a and P90b we could give a margin of error, but indeed that is not common practice that I can find. Well, in natural sciences it is. That's what physicist learn to do... Serious publications require it always. > I suggest to regard any dimension as an approximation, except for counting > stable aggregates of things. Do you mean then to remove the “true quantity” description from the scope notes? Indeed:-)
