Dear Christian-Emil, > Am 06.01.2023 um 13:45 schrieb Christian-Emil Smith Ore > <[email protected]>: > > Dear all, > I am the one responsible for the Oseberg example. I made a typeo, the planks > where found in 1903 and of course not in 1908. Thank you, Wolfgang! I choose > the Wikipedia as source. All texts with the information about how the tenant > (not the owner) at the farm Nedre Oseberg, found the oak planks are in > Norwegian.
I really like the example, and I fondly remember the tour to the museum. But I think a cited source should contain the information given in the example, so I would suggest to replace either the source or the example. Similarly for the Villa of the Papyri: The example mentions the marble floor and the source doesn't, so I would suggest here as well to change either the source or the example. > Phenomenal place: It is ok, but makes the example harder to read. I am not > sure if we need to specify that it is a phenomenal place. I can of course > give the geo-coordinates for the finding with an accuracy of 20 meters since > the mound is easily identifiable and not very big. We can shorten "phenomenal place" to "place" if that helps. And after P89 you can specify any place attestation you like, for example the burial mound or its geo-coordinates or the farm. In my opinion this is part of a wider issue of cutting corners because "we all know what is meant", until someone doesn't. It's the same in the examples for E9 Move / P26 moved to / P27 moved from. And in the case of O21, mixing up the phenomenal place with a place attestation really leads to an incorrect statement about the phenomenal place of the encounter event. Or take P179 had sales price, where the example "The purchase of 10 okka of nails by the captain A. Syrmas on 18th September 1895 (E96) had sales price 20 piastre (grosi) (E97)" suggests that "20 piastre" is directly the monetary amount, as opposed to "had sales price: Sales price of the purchase (E97) [20 piastre (grosi)]", if monetary amounts are supposed to behave like all the examples in the superclass E54 Dimension of E96 Monetary Amount. If you have a string "20 piastre (grosi)" in a database field and are not interested in splitting it up into currency and value, then by all means just say "had sales price 20 piastre (grosi)". Or just say "the Tutankhamun exhibition moved to the Saatchi Gallery" if you don’t know or don’t care care about the fact that this place attestation is not the phenomenal place. But shouldn't at least the official examples be correct? Best, Wolfgang > Best, > Christian-Emil > > > From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Wolfgang Schmidle > via Crm-sig <[email protected]> > Sent: 06 January 2023 10:54 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for CRMsci 2.0 > > Dear Thanasis, > > > Example for S15 Observable Entity: > > > > • the flight of a male Bearded Vulture observed over Heraklion, > > Crete in the morning of the 24th of October 2020 (E5) (Claes, 2020) > > Claes, J. (2020) Bearded Vulture - Gypaetus barbatus, Observation.org. > > Available at:https://observation.org/observation/203043133/ (Accessed: 20 > > December 2022). > > According to the linked webpage, the Bearded Vulture was observed near the > village of Loukia, in the south of the regional unit of Iraklio. > > > > Example for S19 Encounter Event: > > • the encounter of the marble floor of the Villa of the Papyri in > > Herculaneum during the digging of a well in 1750 (S19) (Koekoe, 2017) > > Koekoe, J. (2017) ‘Herculaneum: Villa of the Papyri – World History et > > cetera’, 17 January. Available at: > > https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/villa-papyri/ (Accessed: 20 December > > 2022). > > The linked webpage doesn't mention a marble floor. > > > > • the encounter of oak planks from a ship during a dig in a mound at > > the farm Lille Oseberg in Norway in 1908 (S19) (‘Oseberg Ship’, Wikipedia, > > 2022) > > ‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) Wikipedia. Available at: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship&oldid=1127078631 > > (Accessed: 20 December 2022). > > According to the linked Wikipedia page it was excavated 1904–1905, so the > encounter of oak planks was likely in 1904? And I assume from the example > that these oak planks were the first part of the ship that was found, but the > article doesn't say this. > > > > Example for O19 encountered object: > > • The encounter of a marble floor during the digging of a well in > > 1750 (S19) encountered object the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum (E18). > > (Koekoe, 2017) > > Koekoe, J. (2017) ‘Herculaneum: Villa of the Papyri – World History et > > cetera’, 17 January. Available at: > > https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/villa-papyri/ (Accessed: 20 December > > 2022). > > see above > > > > • The encounter of oak planks from a ship during a dig in a mound at > > the farm Lille Oseberg in Norway, in 1908 (S19) encountered object the > > Oseberg Ship (E18). (‘Oseberg Ship’, Wikipedia, 2022) > > ‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) Wikipedia. Available at: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship&oldid=1127078631 > > (Accessed: 20 December 2022). > > see above > > > > Example for O21 encountered at: > > > > • The encounter of the Oseberg Ship in 1908 (S19) encountered at the > > farm Lille Oseberg in Norway (E53). (‘Oseberg Ship’, Wikipedia, 2022) > > ‘Oseberg Ship’ (2022) Wikipedia. Available at: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseberg_Ship&oldid=1127078631 > > (Accessed: 20 December 2022). > > I think the example should be like this: > The encounter of the Oseberg Ship in 1908 (S19) encountered at The phenomenal > place of the encounter of the Oseberg Ship (E53) [P89 falls within: the farm > Lille Oseberg in Norway] > > The argument is the same as in the example of the Sphaerosyllis levantina > specimens in Haifa Bay: Otherwise you would state that the phenomenal place > of the Encounter Event contains the whole farm, which I don’t think is true. > > > > Examples for O31 has validity time-span: > > > > • The measurement of the position of the Titanic by captain Smith > > after hitting an iceberg (S23) has validity time-span from 15 April 1912 > > 23:40 to 15 April 1912 00:15 (E52) [This was the time-span between hitting > > the iceberg and ordering for a distress signal (time-span A). Captain Smith > > measured the position during a time-span B within time-span A. [The two > > time-spans can be related with property 'P86 falls within'] (Tikkanen, 2022) > > > The O31 scope note, version in the email from 24.11.2022: > > > This property associates an instance of S23 Position Measurement with the > > instance of E53 Time-Span for which the measurement is valid. No inferences > > can be made in relation to the validity of the measurement outside this > > time-span despite the fact that some measured entities are relatively > > stable and their positions may remain the same after the measurement. The > > time-span of validity should fall within (P86 falls within (contains)) the > > overall time-span (P4 has time-span (is time-span of) of the process of > > measurement. > > Did this change since then? Because in your example it seems to be the other > way round, the time-span of validity (A) contains the time-span of the > measurement (B). > > In the same email, O31 is declared as a subproperty of P4 has time-span. But > P4 denotes the phenomenal time-span of a temporal entity. This doesn’t seem > to fit with either version? Or what would be the temporal entity whose > phenomenal time-span is the validity time-span of the measurement? > > And out of curiosity: How does the concept of a validity time-span relate to > E3 Condition State ("the time-span for which a certain condition can be > asserted may be shorter than the real time-span, for which this condition > held“)? > > Best, > Wolfgang > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
