What Martin describes was my understanding as well at the Linked.Art
meeting. In response to Rob's notes:
I think that indeed we have the "lot (object)" which is a physical thing
that is sold and "lot (record)" which is a document talking about the
"lot (object)". Writing about a physical thing does not make it a
concept, it creates a new concept. So I think there is no problem there.
The problem is Rob's note 4 which George also mentioned: that the lot
that someone buys may be a non-material thing and aggregated only for
the auction. It is likely a conceptual object, so maybe we need
something like "P148 has component (is component of)" in that case?
If one goes down the "lot" as a subclass route, the two lots (lot
physical and lot conceptual) should be different classes I think. But I
can see that increases complexity.
T.
On 21/10/2019 19:56, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear Florian, All,
It is not clear to me why people do not want to use E18 for Aggregates
that are not intended to grow over time in the sense of a collection.
The time, how long they are together, does not play a role. The question
is only, if they are well defined and identified for some time.
For biodiversity scenaria, we have used a concept of Temporary Aggregate
which exists only within an Activity, such as a catch of plankton and
counting the species in it.
Since the CRM does not model subclasses without distinct properties, the
Auction Lot is an E18, and you are free to introduce your own subclass
for it.
Making E78 any aggregate, we come in conflicts separating it from E18.
NOTE, that an E18 does not require physical coherence, such as sets of
chessmen etc. We would then have competing models, if the distinction
cannot be made clearly.
We have discussed repeatedly, that a useful distinction of
"non-aggregates" from "aggregates" cannot be made.
Opinions?
Best,
Martin
On 10/21/2019 1:43 PM, Florian Kräutli wrote:
Dear George,
This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note
of E78 suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there
is no satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections
you describe.
However, instead of introducing another class and then having to come
up with criteria that separate a 'set' from a 'curated holding' I
would rather extend the examples under E78 to include other types of
aggregates.
Personally, I would interpret the current scope note to allow for
auction lots, as you describe them, to be understood as E78 Curated
Holding. The term in the scope note that might stand in the way is
that the aggregation is said to be assembled "according to a
particular *collection development plan*". An auction lot is not
generally assembled by following a collection development plan, but it
is nevertheless purposefully put together. I wonder whether that term
is necessary or if it is a remnant of the definition of E78 as a
Collection.
Best,
Florian
On 20. Oct 2019, at 18:55, George Bruseker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear all,
At the recent Linked.art event, the Linked.art group was attempting
to model information related to auctions. It happens that during
auctions, lots (collections or sets of things) are created with the
intention that things will be sold together. Ie they are aggregates.
In facing the question of modelling this, we seem to have some options.
1) E78 Curated Holding... it's a stretch, but there was a 'plan' to
hold these things together for a day or so and to sell them together
2) E19 Physical Thing... CRM SIG has in the past recommended
modelling aggregates of things as being an E19 with parts.
The above solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory since 1 goes against
the intended usage of E78, one imagines, and 2 requires one
instantiating a physical thing (well this holds mutatis mutandi for
E78) for an aggregate that will possibly only ever be together once.
In fact, since the objects are only put together in the lot for the
intention of sale, they may not have had to have been physically
brought together as a physical item ever. In this sense modelling
them with either E78 or E19 seems to break ontological commitment (ie
we do not think that these things were ever brought together or
treated physically as one).
Because Linked.art also has members in the group who represent modern
art museums, the discussion also comes upon the possibility that
included in the lot of things sold may be some sort of intellectual
thing, no physical object at all. Obviously because of its nature, we
could not bundle a conceptual object with a physical object using
physical mereology relations. So... modelling difficulty ahoy!
Could we take up this discussion during SIG (or if there is already a
satisfactory solution overlooked can it be referred to)?
To me it seems to raise the question of the possibility of defining a
conceptual object class for 'set', although I am sure this will open
up a large discussion!
Look forward to see you all soon!
Best,
George
ref: https://github.com/linked-art/linked.art/issues/281
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
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
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email:[email protected]
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
