Yes, this is a fine point and I struggled to find an example for such a
case of P111. However there is also this:
https://www.demilked.com/bronze-hand-squeezed-trees-sculpture-giuseppe-penone/
which is rare but matches the case?
T.
On 29/01/2022 17:48, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear Thanasi, all,
I agree with all, except:
3) Example for E79 augmenting a natural object:
the carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph on the Culpa tree (Buhrich et al.,
2015)
4) Example for P110
The carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph (E79) augmentedthe Culpa tree
(E20). (Buhrich et al., 2015)
I' argue that this example is a production of a human-made feature ex
initio on the tree. I'd argue that the meaning of E79 is that a
*pre-existing* thing has been added. Otherwise, it comes in conflict
with production, and the tracing of things that become part of another
and then travel with it through the world.
I propose *to modify *the scope note of E79 to make this clear. I think
cases in which the /P111 added/ thing is not a "Physical Object" can
only be sort of collections, in which the definition of the whole under
consideration is expanded to comprise another feature, such as real
estate properties.
The removal is not completely symmetric. It says that something has been
removed, but the removed matter may have a unique identity only from the
time of removal on, and then should be also a Production event.
The inverse, a part addition in which the added part looses its identity
within the whole it augmented (and then be a destruction event??) may
probably be too exotic (Frodo's Ring not withstanding).
All the best,
Martin
On 1/25/2022 3:20 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
It turns out that we might also need to worry about P110. The HW for
both is included here to discuss and vote at the next SIG:
1) Change the range of P112 diminished:
From:
E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
To:
E18 Physical Thing
And update the property scope note from:
“This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal. Although an
instance of E80 Part removal activity normally concerns only one
instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing, it is possible to imagine
circumstances under which more than one item might be diminished by a
single instance of E80 Part Removal activity.”
to:
“This property identifies the instance E18 Physical Thing that was
diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal. Although an instance of
E80 Part removal activity normally concerns only one instance of E18
Physical Thing, it is possible to imagine circumstances under which
more than one item might be diminished by a single instance of E80
Part Removal activity.”
2) Update property under the scope note of E80 Part Remove
From:
P112 diminished (was diminished by): E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
To:
P112 diminished (was diminished by): E18 Physical Thing
3) Example for E80 diminishing a natural object
the removal of the Porite coral specimen from the Cocos Islands by
Charles Darwin in April 1836
4) Example for P112 diminished
The coral of the Cocos Islands (E20) was diminished byThe removal of
the Porite coral specimen by Charles Darwin (E80).
Refs:
https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/e1bfb1ab-e94e-4e0a-a13c-bc54e03f22e5
<https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/e1bfb1ab-e94e-4e0a-a13c-bc54e03f22e5>https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html
<https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-coral-conundrum.html>
Extra HW for P110:
1) Change the range of P110 augmented:
From:
E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
To:
E18 Physical Thing
And update the property scope note from:
“This property identifies the instance of E24 Physical Human-Made
Thing that is added to (augmented) in an instance of E79 Part Addition.
Although an instance of E79 Part Addition event normally concerns only
one instance of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing, it is possible to
imagine circumstances under which more than one item might be added to
(augmented). For example, the artist Jackson Pollock trailing paint
onto multiple canvasses.”
To:
“This property identifies the instance of E18 Physical Thing that is
added to (augmented) in an instance of E79 Part Addition.
Although an instance of E79 Part Addition event normally concerns only
one instance of E18 Thing, it is possible to imagine circumstances
under which more than one item might be added to (augmented). For
example, the artist Jackson Pollock trailing paint onto multiple
canvasses.”
2) Update Class E79 Part Addition:
Reference to property P110:
From
P110 augmented (was augmented by): E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
To
P110 augmented (was augmented by): E18 Physical Thing
Scope note update:
From:
“This class comprises activities that result in an instance of E24
Physical Human-Made Thing being increased, enlarged or augmented by
the addition of a part.”
To:
“This class comprises activities that result in an instance of E18
Physical Thing being increased, enlarged or augmented by the addition
of a part.”
3) Example for E79 augmenting a natural object:
the carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph on the Culpa tree (Buhrich et
al., 2015)
4) Example for P110:
The carving of the Culpa Dendroglyph (E79) augmentedthe Culpa tree
(E20). (Buhrich et al., 2015)
Ref:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03122417.2015.11682048
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03122417.2015.11682048>
Looking forward to comments and the discussion.
All the best,
Thanasis
On 13/12/2021 09:58, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
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
--
------------------------------------
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:mar...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
