Dear All,
If the auction lot is just a list, then we could model it as a list,
which refers to the things. A plan of what to sell. If it is sold piece
by piece to different clients, it is not clear why it should be regarded
as one thing at all.
If it has an identifier for this particular set, regardless how far away
the parts, and they are handled together under this identifier, there is
a unity criterion conforming with E18. The composite object exists as
long as its parts are can be accessed reasonably for the function
characteristic for that object. If some figures of a set of chessmen has
fallen into the sea, we regard that the set ceased to exist, because it
is out of normal reach for playing with it.
We can check if a concept of a temporary aggregate would do the job.
See also the White Paper of Europeana about collections. There is a
concept of sets of references used to talk about things, such as
literature lists, which are not library holdings.
Best,
martin
On 10/22/2019 12:26 AM, Athanasios Velios wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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
