Also complexity increases when you have an object E22 which then becomes
a feature E25 in another object, e.g. a plank of wood becomes part of a
laminated board for a manuscript. A new identifier would be necessary
after the part addition event for the resulting feature. People
(including me, regularly) get confused with the classes at that point as
the new identity for what seems to be the same thing feels
counter-intuitive.
All the best,
Thanasis
On 10/12/2025 10:49, Dominic Oldman via Crm-sig wrote:
The issue was just about the scope note and "objects and sword". I saw
an example of E24 being used with E9 and I wondered whether the scope
note was misleading.
E24 says
"This class comprises, besides others, human-made objects, such as a
sword, and human-made features, such as rock art."
Thanks,
Dominic
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 at 10:44, Franco Niccolucci
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:crm-sig-
[email protected]>> på vegne av George Bruseker via Crm-sig
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sendt:* onsdag 10. desember 2025 10:49
*Til:* Dominic Oldman <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Kopi:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <crm-
[email protected] <mailto:[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/ <https://www.takin.solutions/>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 10:17 AM Dominic Oldman via Crm-sig
<[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list <http://cidoc-
crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list>
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list <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
