Dear All,
"In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, upon discussing
the presentation
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Resources/typed-and-negative-typed-properties-multiple-individuals-and-negation-in-the-cidoc-crm>by
Thanasis Velios on Typed and Negative Typed Properties, the SIG resolved
to start a new issue, where to discuss expressing the idea that an
object has been completely observed and has been dound to lack a certain
feature. This fact forces a closed-world assumption on the object of
documentation.
Rome, September 2022"
I have promised to present some ideas we had discussed in the past in
the context of biodiversity, about observation proving that some species
is extinct, or in archaeology, about the absence of some phenomenon.
Typical examples are the *unnoticed survival* of the sea otter in the
Monterey area of California in a small bay,
and the so far *unique find* of gears from whole antiquity in the
Antikythera Mechanism - people would not have put such things in graves.
Another example is the lack of fish bones in Minoan culture - they are
simply not preserved in the Cretan climate.
The Negative Typed Property states that the domain has no relation to
*any instance* of the referred *type*.
We can argue, that a reasonable assessment of non-existence should imply:
*A)* the respective potential instances must have a reasonable
likelihood to be *preserved *to the time of observation at least in traces.
*B)* the applied method of observation must be suitable to *detect*
them, in particular traces.
C) the domain instance, the one lacking the relation, must be observed
with sufficient *density and coverage*.
C1) In case of species, there are arguments about minimal populations
and the areas they would roam about, so that the observation density
needs not be complete coverage. Similar arguments may apply to
archaeological object types.
The issue second to be discussed is the time of validity.
A) Eternal:
A1) The domain object under investigation has never had such a
relation since its begin of existence. This is a question of temporal
coverage, or of proof that traces would still exist, or that that the
object had not the possibility until the end of observation. These
senses produce a sort of being "current", up to the time of last
observation.
A2) The domain object under investigation has never had such a
relation since its begin of existence and will not have until its end,
such as putting wheels on a piece of cloth, or putting leaf markers in
ancient books in a museum, or in investigating remains of past objects
or a past activity/ extinct culture, or the *instances of the related
type* do no more exist.
B) From some time on: The domain object under investigation has lost
such a relation. This is characteristic for extinction. The species
cannot be recreated. Similarly for any type with instances that do no
more exits after the referred time of loss and end of observation.
C) For the period of observation only.
For the time being, we can state that the meaning is always at least C),
and there may be arguments for more.
If a negative property held before some time, we have to think more
about it.
Probably, a good practice will be to associate an observation with the
negative property.
So far my ideas.
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:[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
