It makes sense for the twig from the branch, but not from the branch from the tree (or stalactite from the cave, fragment for study from a meteorite, etc etc). Removing the branch/fragment from the tree/meteorite results in a Human-Made Object (via the Part Removal / Production), but the tree/meteroite that is P112 diminished by the activity does not become a Physical Human-Made Thing in the process. It stays an E20 Biological Object/E19 Physical Object, just a smaller one.
R On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:45 AM Athanasios Velios <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
