Thank you for the clarification. I think this more closely aligns with how monograms, symbols, etc. are cataloged (as idealized representations).
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:45 PM Martin Doerr <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > I revise the intent, following Robert's concerns that it may be > interpreted as a restriction rather than as an illustration of typical use: > > *NEW* > > Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or > short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by > arbitrary techniques, *often* in order to indicate such things as > creator, owner, dedications, purpose or to communicate information > generally. Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the actual image of a > mark, but the abstract ideal, as they use to be codified in reference > documents that are used in cultural documentation. > > This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic > significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be documented > as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature. > Best, > > Martin > > On 1/17/2020 6:22 PM, Martin Doerr wrote: > > Dear All, > > There were questions about the level of abstraction of E37 Mark. Therefore > I rewrite, following the relevant discussions when this class was defined. > The argument was that it should directly link to the codes that are used in > museum documentation for (registered) marks. > > *Old scope note:* > > Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or > short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by > arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, > purpose, etc. > > This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic > significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be documented > as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature. > > *NEW* > > Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or > short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by > arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, > purpose, etc. Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the actual image of a > mark, but the abstract ideal, as they use to be codified in reference > documents that are used in cultural documentation. > > This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic > significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be documented > as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature. > > > Can someone provide a relevant example from an authority document of marks? > > Such as > > Castagno, John. *Old Masters: Signatures and Monograms, 1400–Born 1800*. > Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996. > > Caplan, H. H. and Bob Creps. *Encyclopedia of Artists' Signatures, > Symbols & Monograms: Old Masters to Modern, North American & European plus > More; 25,000 Examples*. Land O'Lakes, FL: Dealer's Choice Books, 1999. > > -- > ------------------------------------ > 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 > > > -- > ------------------------------------ > 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
