Yes, my point was not about the difference but more about the scope note. The reason I brought this up is because I saw an example of the confusion and it made me wonder whether this came from a reading of the scope note.
D On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 at 09:58, George Bruseker <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe a more useful way to say it is that it’s a class that allows you to > talk about either a physical thing that is movable or that is not but does > not yet allow you to talk about its relations such as being movable or not. > For that further detail you need a more precise class. > > George Bruseker, PhD > Chief Executive Officer > Takin.solutions Ltd. > https://www.takin.solutions/ > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 10:49 AM George Bruseker < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Dominic, >> >> Yes this is as it should be. This class is the super set of the human >> made object and human made feature. As such its instances include both of >> its child classes’ instances. It represents what they share in common which >> is essentially being a physical kind of thing and being the kind of thing >> made by humans. It is also stated by the ontology that this then is from >> where you can begin to speak of representations. According to crm >> representations are only made by humans. >> >> So if you need to talk about things that are movable you hop down to e22 >> and if you are needing to make statements about things that are features >> hop down to e25. >> >> E24 is a class that likely isn’t invoked much directly but rather serves >> to support the representation of some things that are common in its child >> classes. >> >> Linked.art takes the decision to not split the hairs about whether a >> thing can be moved or not (since ultimately anything likely could be moved >> with a little imagination) and uses e22. But for some e25 serves useful >> purposes for indicating the physical objects that inhere in other objects. >> >> Is that helpful or addressing the direction of your question or did you >> have something else in mind? >> >> Best >> >> George >> >> George Bruseker, PhD >> Chief Executive Officer >> Takin.solutions Ltd. >> https://www.takin.solutions/ >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 10:17 AM Dominic Oldman via Crm-sig < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear SIG, >>> >>> The scope note for E24 says, >>> >>> "This class comprises all persistent physical items of any size that are >>> purposely created by human activity. This class comprises, besides others, >>> *human-made >>> objects, such as a sword*, and human-made features, such as rock art. >>> For example, a “cup and ring” carving on bedrockis regarded as an instance >>> of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing." >>> >>> Is this right/misleading? >>> >>> If it includes objects then why can't they be moved? The note includes >>> items that might be considered objects - they are usually defined in E22 or >>> E18 - items which have "physical boundaries that separate them completely >>> in an objective way from other objects." This explains the >>> difference between a carving on a wall and a movable object. If the carving >>> is cut out of the wall then it gets sound physical boundaries and can be >>> moved. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dominic >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Crm-sig mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >>> >>
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
