In which case I suppose the proposal to discuss at the next SIG is:
1) change the range of P112 from E24 Physical Human-Made Thing to E18
Physical Thing
2) fix the reference to the property under the scope note of E80
3) add an example to E80 and a corresponding example to P112 for
non-man-made things.
Could we assign a new issue number to this?
All the best,
Thanasis
On 05/12/2021 19:44, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear All,
Actually the class was also designed for cutting parts from
archaeological objects, natural history stuff etc. We had a long
discussion if, in the very instant, a part is broken from a natural
object, e.g. for sampling, the diminished becomes "human made". We later
ultimately decided that this violates identity criteria of classes. It
just leaves a human-made feature on a natural object.
Therefore, we need to revise wherever this logic had been applied before.
Best,
Martin
On 11/30/2021 11:25 PM, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:
Ahh, thank you, I understand now. Well, the scope notes of the various
classes and properties should be improved to make that clear if it's
the case.
And then we would need to have the discussion about how to remove
fragments from meteorites, so I hope that's _not_ the case :D
R
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:59 PM Athanasios Velios
<[email protected]> wrote:
I completely understand the reasoning and I agree that intuitively a
tree with a broken branch is a diminished thing. It is just that the
scope note and all of the examples in E80 Part Removal are for
Human-Made things so I worry that the class has been designed for
Human-Made things only, i.e. breaking off the original branch may
not be
E80. Part Addition and Part Removal are designed to allow us to track
the use of a component integrated intentionally in multiple
objects over
its history, so it may be that a thing needs to be added before it
can
be removed. If we care about the tree prior to cutting the branch
then
it may be only a modification. Am I taking it too far?
Having said that, pushing the property higher in the hierarchy,
although
I am told we should avoid it in general, in this case it may not
cause
too many problems.
T.
P.S. Amazingly, the inconsistency between the scope note and property
range existed since version 3.4.
--
------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
