Dear Rob,
I do agree with the need and the formulation, and it can be extremely
useful for iconographical attributes (which are intentionally classified
using categories). I did personally used [the same
construct](https://ncarboni.github.io/vir/#K21_depict_things_of_type) in
an extension of CRM for iconographical representation, so would love to
see it in CRM base.
Sub Property Of P138 Represents
What about making it as subproperty of "P137 exemplifies (is exemplified
by)". It does seems to me more appropriate.
This property establishes the relationship between an E36 Visual Item
and an E55 Type that represents the class of entity which it visually
represents. This property is used when the specific entity being
represented is either unknown, or not of documentary interest. The
manner or mode of the representation can be captured using Pxx.1 mode
of representation.
I would not use a negative ("not of documentary interest") and say "This
property is used when the specific entity being represented is either
unknown, or for documenting the belonging of an item to a specific
category" or another more positive formulation. In my experience, the
choice of the classification of categorical vs instance depends on the
discipline and not by a lack of documentary interest.
Another example could be:
* The attribute of the wall painting "Saint George" (E36)
represents an entity of type dragon (E55) in the manner of
Iconographical Attribute (E55)
Best,
Nicola
—
Nicola Carboni
Research Fellow // History of Art
University of Zurich Post Box 23
Ramistrasse 71 8006 Zurich
Switzerland
On 19 Feb 2020, at 1:54, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Dear all,
(Last new issue for now, I promise)
When describing a Visual Item, we can say that it represents some
entity that you can point to (e.g. the sitter), that it is about some
subject that you can’t point to (e.g love) and it can have general
classifications with has type for style (abstract) or other such
features of the overall visual content. However, it would be useful to
be able to say that a class of entity is represented in the visual
item rather than a specific entity.
We have tried several approaches to this. If we want to say that a
still life painting depicts flowers, we would not want to create a
Biological Object and classify it as a flower to be represented by the
visual item of the painting … such a flower may never have actually
existed, and it would be enormously expensive. Equally we don’t
think that the Type “flowers” is represented in the painting …
it’s a not a depiction of all flowers, it’s a depiction of some,
likely fictional, collection of specific flowers.
So we would propose a new property that parallels P138 represents, but
instead refers to a class of entity rather than a specific.
We can see this pattern already in the model:
P16 used specific object vs P125 used object of type
P20 had specific purpose vs P21 had general purpose
P33 used specific technique vs P32 used general technique
P108 has produced vs P186 produced thing of product type
Pxx represents entity of type
Domain: E36 Visual Item
Range: E55 Type
Sub Property Of P138 Represents
This property establishes the relationship between an E36 Visual Item
and an E55 Type that represents the class of entity which it visually
represents. This property is used when the specific entity being
represented is either unknown, or not of documentary interest. The
manner or mode of the representation can be captured using Pxx.1 mode
of representation.
Properties: Pxx.1 mode of representation: E55 Type
Examples:
* The still life painting’s image content (E36) represents and
entity of type flowers (E55)
* The sculpture’s visual content (E36) represents an entity of
type woman (E55)
* The photograph’s visual content (E36) represents an entity of
type beach (E55) in the manner of background (E55)
Thoughts?
Many thanks!
Rob
--
Dr. Robert Sanderson, Semantic Architect | Getty Digital |
getty.edu<http://getty.edu/>
[signature_1245888113]
_______________________________________________
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
