Dear Fancesco,
Thank you very much for reconsidering and withdrawing your veto. By
mistake, I send my message before finishing it.
Please let me be more analytical about the arguments.
Your arguments in the SIG meeting have been well understood and well
respected, and been evaluated against the alternatives and *by no means
*ignored or *regarded as irrelevant*.
Summarizing the arguments pro:
1) Even though the range of P39 until 7.1 was E1 CRM Entity, it should
never has been used in CRM applications for things other than instances
of E70 Thing. Therefore, the range of P39 should be restricted at least
to E70 Thing.
2) According to the scope note of E16, a Measurement is the result of
observing a physical thing.
The old and new scope note begins:
"This class comprises actions measuring quantitative physical properties
and other values that can be determined by a systematic, objective
procedure of direct observation of particular states of physical reality."
3) Determining or inferring instances of P43 has dimension can be the
result of different kinds of processes.
For instances of E28 Conceptual Objects, these processes are not E16
Measurement, but evaluation of results, as *clearly stated in the old
scope note*:
"Properties of instances of E90 Symbolic Object may be measured by
observing some of their representative *carriers*...." and
"Regardless whether a measurement is made by an instrument or by human
senses, it *represents the initial transition from physical reality to
information without any other documented information object in between*
within the reasoning chain that would represent the result of the
interaction of the observer or device with reality. Therefore, inferring
properties of depicted items using image material, such as satellite
images, *is not regarded as an instance of E16 Measurement*, but as a
subsequent instance of *E13 Attribute Assignment.*"
4) Since the processes for inferring instances of P43 has dimension can
be documented using E13 Attribute Assignment, it is not necessary that
the range of P39 includes non-physical things in order to document how a
dimension of an instance of E70 Thing was found. This is already
described in the old scope note.
Of *paramount importance* is the interpretation that a measurement
implies the *physical presence *of an object of evidence. Physical
presence is one of the most fundamental reasoning processes in the CRM,
which must not be abandoned or confused. In how far results are
repeatable, precise etc. is *all *secondary to the fact that a present
physical thing has empirically be evaluated.
Therefore, the *e-vote is about the consistency *of the correction of
the scope notes with the basic meaning of the old scope note of E16, and
the correct propagation of all ramifications of the already decided
reduction of the range of P39.
5) Since in version 7.1 we do, for good reasons, no more require all
properties of compatible extensions to be subproperties of CRMbase
properties, S21 Measurement in CRMsci needs no more be subclass of E16
Measurement for formal reasons. The *inadequate range of P39* however
*prevented* developing adequate generalization of E16 Measurement in
CRMsci. The decision to reduce P39 to E18 Physical Thing in the ISO
standard to come *enables* CRMsci to be developed as it should. Not
doing it, *would have blocked CRMsci* for a decade.
Please allow me to answer below your statements:
On 3/23/2021 3:20 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with
monotonicity, and more largely with substantially changing the
substance of a class without changing its identifier: E16 remains
E16 but "measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of
coins" is now _excluded_.
As stated above by citing the old scope note, I kindly ask you to
consider that we have good reasons not to regard the decision as
"substantially changing the substance" of E16, but as respecting the
very substance, in contrast to border cases.
It is not true that "measuring the nominal monetary value of a
collection of coins" is now _excluded_. It is true that it no more
explicitly meantioned as an important application. It was deleted
because it is amgiguous about the evaluation method, and therefore
regarded as not particularly useful.
The paramount application of E16 is conservation technology in museum,
monuments, and archaeometry, not counting pixels of images or money.
Would you indeed disagree?
So what about all project's using E16 for that ? Not to mention the
surface of Places as geometries and so many projects using E53 Place
for representing a geographical place ? The surface of a place
cannot be measured ?
If you have followed e-mail discussions last year, we discussed that the
surface of a Physical Feature, including settlements etc., can quite
well be measured with the new model and *falls under E18 Physical Thing*.
In 7.1, E53 Place does not have P43 has dimension anyway, because E53
Place is not subclass of E70 Thing.
You may have missed in the last meeting that the assignment of
dimensions to E53 Place was *decided *as a *new issue* for edition 7.2,
because it needs more thinking.
Issue 511 starts from a useful consistency check : "E54 Dimensions are
associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has dimension. So not
every class can have dimensions, only those that are descendents of E70.
However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1
CRM Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot
have a dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems
inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be
measured.
I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to
resolve this inconsistency."
Because of this argument : "My argument about measuring non-physical
things is that it does not constitute an observation process, but an
abstraction from observable things. We can always use Attribute
Assignment for such evaluations. So, we can assign the word count to
a text, without using E16 Measurement."
after a quite short discussion (in proportion to the relevance of
the issue) we vote about the restriction of this same class to a
quite different substance than the long period one.
Excluding, e.g. the monetary value of an entity, which is purely abstract.
My argument was rebutted in the SIG saying the replacement is
Attribute Assignment and algorithms can do the job in the data. I
partly agree but it seems to me that, given the radical change of
substance, the consistency of the information produced before
version 7.??? will be lost.
This is confusing the decision. The class is not restricted to a radical
change of substance, but reduced in scope. If you disagree, please make
constructive arguments to the above. Please consult those who do
measurements in their daily practice.
It is simply logically wrong that information produced before version
7.??? will be lost. The migration path provided is definitely loss-free
from a technical point of view.
So why then not create a new class, with a new ID and a new
substance, restricted in the mentioned sense, and deprecate E16 if
wished but leaving it as is for the sake of consistency of legacy
information and monotonicity ?
This argument has been understood in the SIG meeting. It would however
be a new issue, not 511. I hope you are aware that you require priority
of counting coins and words over the whole discipline of conservation
technology and archaeometry, which measues as described in the scope
note of E16. Is that really what you advocate for?
Concluding, CRM SIG takes the issue of monotonicity *utterly serious.
*You may have missed the argument in the SIG discussion that we have
evaluated:
The "con" of a backwards incompatibility before going to ISO,
of applications which are *not core*, with a *loss-free*
migration path,
and together with *another set* of migration instructions.
against to "pro" of a consistent model of measurement, in scope notes
examples and properties,
which will enable the development of a scientifically
correct wider model
of measurement in CRMsci.
and against delaying the decision of a monotonicity break for a time
when the new ISO standard will be underway.
I hope I could clarify with the above my and CRM-SIG's deep respect for
all arguments and absolute sincerity to evaluate all arguments on a
rational, comprehensible basis, including yours you described in the
meeting and repeated above.
All the best,
Martin
**
Given these arguments, I vote:
VETO.
All the best
Francesco
--
------------------------------------
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
