Isn't "diminished" just a label, rather than a value statement? I don't think something needs to be complete for a part to be removed (I can break a twig off the branch, which I previously broke off the tree). I read it as "was made smaller by" in that some part was removed. I agree that Part Removal is not always a Production -- the same part could be added and removed several times, and clearly not all of them are Productions. [Personally, I would never say it was a Production, but that a Production might have a Part Removal as a part of it]
Here's a related question... Can an E78 Curated Holding have a Physical Feature as part of it? Conceptually, yes ... but E78 is a physical aggregate, not a conceptual thing. Does the collections system of Arches National Park have records for the rock formations? Surely it must. And if the National Park boundaries were changed, then the arched rock formations that no longer fell within the protected area would have to be removed from the E78. So I think I even retract "you can't remove features" given the physicality of E78. Rob On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:05 PM Athanasios Velios <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes this is a logical position. I guess the way I have been reading it > is that the object that is diminished was indeed intentionally made by a > human and therefore it *can* be diminished. If it is any thing then who > judges if it is complete and has been diminished? There is no agency on > its original "production". > > The reason we have E18 as range is because the removed item's identity > is not that of a human made object. I.e. Part removal is not a > Production which I think is the reason the following sentence is in the > scope note: > > "In cases where the part removed has no discernible identity prior to > its removal but does have an identity subsequent to its removal, the > activity should be modelled as both an instance of E80 Part Removal and > E12 Production." > > hence the removed part is pushed up to E18. > > T. > > > On 29/11/2021 16:36, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > > > Good spotting! I agree with Thanasis that there is any issue, but I > > think that the range is wrong for P112, which I would argue should also > > be E18. > > > > For example, I find a tree and break off a branch. The tree is not a > > Human-Made Thing, it's an E20 Biological Object. Or I break a piece of > > obsidian (I would argue an E19) into two. Or if the obsidian is part of > > a lava flow, then it would be a physical feature ... and thus we end up > > at E18 as the common ancestor. > > > > I think that E18 remains correct for P113, given the described use of > > removal of a part from an E78 Curated Holding. If I remove a meteorite > > fragment from the collection of a natural history museum, the meteorite > > is (again, I would argue) an E19. Now ... can it ever be an E18 Physical > > Thing but not an E19 Physical Object? It can't be a Feature, as they > > cannot be removed, ruling out E26 and below. However E78 is an E24 > > Physical Human-Made Thing, but not an E19 Physical Object. If we use > > E78 to model sub-collections, and sub-collections can be removed from > > their parent, then yes, here is a case where we need E18. > > > > Rob > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to update the > > scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that E80 > Part > > Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off in a > cave. > > > > Thanasis > > > > On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am hoping you might be able to help me with a small confusion - > > > > > > The scope note for E80_Part_Removal > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Entity/e80-part-removal/version-7.1.1>> > states > > > that "This class comprises the activities that result in an > > instance of > > > E18 Physical Thing being decreased by the removal of a part." > > This reads > > > to me as if the relationship would then go: E80 > P112_diminished > > > E18, > > > as P112 creates the connection to the thing being diminished > (having > > > something removed from it), as opposed to P113_removed, which is > > for the > > > connection to the thing that was removed. > > > However, the range of P112 is E24, not E18, and the scope note for > > > P112_diminished > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p112-diminished/version-7.1.1 > >> reads > > > "This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made > Thing > > > that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal." > > > Meanwhile, the range of P113_removed > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p113-removed/version-7.1.1>> is > E18, as > > > is the range of P31_has_modified <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/node/8121>>, the > > > superproperty of P112. > > > > > > It seems to me therefore that either I am reading the scope note > > > incorrectly (very possible!) or that there is an inconsistency > > between > > > the two, perhaps in the range of P112? > > > > > > I looked in the Issues history for anything about this, and > > wonder if > > > the discussion around the change of P31 (Issue 191 > > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-191-range-of-p31>>) might have > > relevance > > > to either the range or language around it, as in that case the > > range of > > > P31 was relaxed from E24 to E18. Although, that being said, this > > > perceived E18/E24 inconsistency as described above exists as far > > back as > > > v4.0 <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80 > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/html/cidoc_crm_v4.0.html#E80>>, the earliest > > > version available on the website, so perhaps it is my reading of > the > > > scope note that is backwards... > > > > > > To summarize, my question is - Which is the correct range of > > P112: E18 > > > as stated in the E80 scope note or E24 as stated in the P112 > > scope note > > > and range; or am I reading this set of notes/relationships > > incorrectly? > > > > > > Thanks for your guidance on this, > > > Erin Canning > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Crm-sig mailing list > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crm-sig mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > > > > > > > > -- > > Rob Sanderson > > Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata > > Yale University > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
