Hm, I do not consider it as a value statement, but as indication of the
intension. Breaking a tree branch which is worth putting in your
collection is a production of a Human-Made Object (as well as a
Biological Object). So when you break the twig off the branch, you are
removing a part from a Human-Made thing. In other words you cannot
remove a part unless it is included intentionally on the original thing
in the first place. Does this make sense?
T.
On 29/11/2021 19:57, Robert Sanderson wrote:
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] <mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[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>
> <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>
> <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>
> <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>
> <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>
> <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>
> <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]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
> <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]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
> <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
