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
<thana...@softicon.co.uk <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>> 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
> <thana...@softicon.co.uk <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>
<mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>>>
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
> > <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
> <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>>> 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>>
> >
<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>>
> >
<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>>
> >
<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>>
> > <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>>
> > <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>>
> > <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
> > > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
> <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>>
> > > 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>>
> > <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
> > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
> <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>>
> > 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>>
> > <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
