Although I like "stuff" more than "thing" because it sounds more generic, although they are more or less synonyms, here is a comment from the Cambridge dictionary (see here <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/thing-and-stuff> for the complete text):
*Thing* We use the general noun *thing* more commonly in speaking than in writing. It is most commonly used to *refer to physical objects*, but we also use *thing* to refer to i*deas, actions and events* ... *Stuff* *Stuff* is one of the most common nouns in speaking. It is more informal than *thing*. It is *not at all common in writing*. ... In conclusion, there should be another word for the matter, as "thing" may convey a dubious meaning and "stuff" is too colloquial and of difficult translation in other languages ; in doubt, "thing" looks better to me. In Italian I would use the term "cosa" which applies both to physical and to immaterial things and translates either English terms; probably the same happens to "chose" in French. Franco On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 11:14 AM Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear both, > I early times before the first ISO version (pre 2004) the name of the > class E70 Thing was E70 Stuff. It was changed because, according to Nick > Crofts, the term 'stuff' could not be translated properly into French. If > you check CIDOC CRM version 3.4.9 you will see that. Personally, I think > that was a bad decision. Shakespeare writes "The stuff dreams are made > of". "Thing" is a bad choice since it may be confused with "Object". > > Best, > Christian-Emil > ------------------------------ > *Fra:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> på vegne av George Bruseker > via Crm-sig <[email protected]> > *Sendt:* onsdag 10. desember 2025 10:49 > *Til:* Dominic Oldman <[email protected]> > *Kopi:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Emne:* Re: [Crm-sig] E24 Physical Human -Made Thing > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
