[Crm-sig] Bias in the CRM

[Athanasios Velios]

Dear all,

In version 7.1 a short but important sentence has been added at the end
of the scope section:

"Discussions on the types of bias present in the CIDOC CRM are in
progress within the CIDOC CRM community."

Issue 530 is used to track the discussions here:

http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-530-bias-in-data-structure

It is important to engage in this discussion so that we first understand
the issues around bias and privileged positions and then how these may
or may not impact the development of the model.

We will then be more confident in making a more complete statement is
future versions. Issue 530 is scheduled to be discussed at the community
session of the forthcoming meeting.

Looking forward to it.

All the best,

Thanasis
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Issue 476: PXX represents entity of type

[Robert Sanderson]

Dear all,


The proposed, revised scope note, copied mostly from the issue which I
believe fulfils the requests from last SIG meeting's discussion, but please
let me know if any additional edits are needed:

This property establishes the relationship between an E36 Visual Item and
an E55 Type that represents the class of an entity which it visually
represents.  This property is used when the identity of the specific entity
being represented is unknown or unidentified beyond the content of the E36
Visual Item. Pxx represents entity of type is a shortcut of the more fully
developed path from the domain E36 Visual Item through P138 represents, E1
Entity, P2 has type, to the range E55 Type.

This property is most useful when there is an entity of some type being
depicted that is not identifiable as any particular individual, but is
clearly of a particular type. The image carried by a photograph of an
unknown garden would depict many flowers, but none of which are known as
entities beyond the photograph. Conversely, if there isn't an individual
that could fill the role of the E1 Entity in the fully developed path, then
this property is not appropriate, and a direct relationship of P138
represents from the E36 Visual Item to the E55 Type is recommended.

The manner or mode of the representation can be captured using Pxx.1 mode
of representation.

Examples:

The photograph’s visual content (E36) represents an entity of type
beach (E55)

The sculpture’s visual content (E36) represents an entity of type woman
(E55)

The landscape painting’s image content (E36) represents an entity of
type field (E55) in the manner of background (E55)


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Issue 519: Homework to propose deprecation of P48, P54

[Robert Sanderson]

Dear all,

Thanks to Eleni for sending out the agenda and thereby reminding of our
homework!

The proposal is to deprecate two properties, P48 has preferred identifier
and P54 has current permanent location, following on from the conclusion of
the discussion around the proposed property of 'has current permanent
custodian' in issue 473.

As I recall it, the rationale for not adding 'has current permanent
custodian' was *not* that the property did not make sense (it did) and *not*
that it was not useful (it is), but that it was not necessary to add, as it
is possible to add a classification to the activity that has the result of
the transfer of custody, as to whether it is temporary or permanent.

The consequence of this was a (brief) examination of the specification for
other properties where this pattern would be applicable, with the obvious
deprecation candidates of P48 and P54.
The remediation pattern for P48 would be to add P2_has_type to the E41
Identifier to indicate preferred-ness, or the E13 attribute assignment /
E15 Identifier Assignment of the identfier to the identified entity.
The remediation pattern for P54 would be to add a P2_has_type to the E9
Move to the location, in the same way that the resolution for 473 was to
add P2_has_type to the Transfer of Custody.

The proposal should be considered separable -- not accepting the
deprecation of P48 is not grounds for not accepting the deprecation of P54.

Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 511

[Дарья Юрьевна Гук]

It's always comparison with something, we fix difference.





With kind regards,
Daria Hookk

Senior Researcher of
the dept. of archaeology of
Eastern Europe and Siberia of 
the State Hermitage Museum,
PhD, ICOMOS member

E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru
Skype: daria.hookk
https://hermitage.academia.edu/HookkDaria___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 511

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Robert,

Yes, exactly.

My argument about measuring non-physical things is that it does not 
constitute an observation process, but an abstraction from observable 
things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such evaluations.


So, we can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 Measurement.

Best,

Martin

On 3/2/2021 11:52 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Martin wrote in particular:
  Reduce in CRMbase Mesaurement , P40 observed dimension, to E18 
Physical Thing. Add 3 different properties “has dimension” in CRMBase 
to E70 Thing, E53 Place, E4 Period (or E2 Temp Entity).


I agree with your argumentation, and believe that the changes in CRM 
Base would be:


P39 measured:
  Range changes from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing

PXX1_has_dimension
  Domain: E53 Place
  Range: E54 Dimension

PXX2_has_dimension
  Domain: E4 Period
  Range: E54 Dimension

to be cognate with P43 has dimension for E70s.

The question would remain about the measuring of Non-physical Things, 
such as the number of symbols in a E90 symbolic object... but I don't 
have that use case, so am happy to leave the discussion to someone 
that does :)


Rob

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:31 PM Martin Doerr > wrote:


**

*Posted by Robert Sanderson on 9/9/2020*

I believe that there is an inconsistency in the model for
measurements and dimensions.

E54 Dimensions are associated directly with E70 Things using P43
has dimension.  So not every class can have dimensions, only those
that are descendents of E70.

However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1
CRM Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot
have a dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This
seems inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can
still be measured.

I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing
to resolve this inconsistency.

We have to distinguish measurement from dimension. In order to
measure something in a narrower sense, I need an observation of
something material. Dimensions can also be result of computation,
evaluation and estimation (forms of Attribute Assignment).

If we look at measuring in the narrower sense, we can count the
characters of a text on paper, but not the abstract text. The
logical representation of a text can be evaluated for its dimensions.

We cannot measure a place, but features at a place. See also Issue
388. But clearly, we can measure duration and extent of processes,
and comparing a clock, which provides a duration from the last
sync event, with some other transient situation or microevent, in
order to calculate absolute time.

So, we may assign the ability to be observed to E18 physical
things and E4 Period, or more narrowly to E5 Event.The ability to
be observed appears to need some common ontological nature, a
certain materiality interacting with measurable signals. Even the
lightning creates a plasma hose lasting some milliseconds. That
would need a new class “Observable Entity” as range.

Otherwise, we may regard measuring physical things and measuring
processes *as independent*. Then, we would need *another
measurement class*, such as “static measurement” versus “dynamic
measurement”.

Dimensions of other things, such as places in the abstract
geometric sense of the CRM, need not be based on a common
property. The place can only have diameters and areas as
dimentions, and may be some more exotic ones. The dimension in the
phenomenal timespan is of course that of the respective period
etc. So, my argument being that E53 Place, E52 Time-Span have
their own properties with range Dimension, without being regarded
as observable (rather results of observation).

I’d propose the following:

Reduce in CRMbase Mesaurement , P40 observed dimension, to E18
Physical Thing. Add 3 different properties “has dimension” in
CRMBase to E70 Thing, E53 Place, E4 Period (or E2 Temp Entity).

Extent CRMSci by E18, E4 IsA Observable Entity, and extend
Mesaurement P40 observed dimension,from E18 to Observable Entity.

Alternatively, introduce “Dynamic Measurement”in CRMSci.

Best,

Martin



--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University



--

 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: mar...@ics.forth.gr
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr

[Crm-sig] New Official Version available

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

It is my pleasure to announce that the CRM-SIG has produced, with all 
your active contributions, help and support, the new official version of 
the CIDOC CRM base: CIDOC CRM 7.1, available at: 
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-7.1 .


The last official version, 5.0.4, dating back to the year 2011, formed 
the basis for the update of ISO21127 to ISO21127:2014. Since then, we 
have worked diligently to improve the expressive power and quality of 
the CIDOC CRM as a base model and have widened the scope by encouraging 
and approving compatible extensions.


For CIDOC CRM 7.1, the entire introductory text has been revised and 
partially rewritten in order to serve as a precise definition of the 
intended function and theoretical foundations of the model and as a 
minimal didactic introduction. The model itself has been substantially 
enhanced in multiple directions.


First, it has been redesigned to provide a) an effective model for 
relating things and phenomena to space and time that supports 
interoperability with geo-referencing standards and GIS applications. In 
order to support this new functionality, a few more classes and nearly 
50 more properties have been added to the standard.


Second, major effort was put improving and stabilizing the logical 
consistency of the standard, introducing first order logic expressions 
to complement the formatted textual declarations.


Third, the model has been streamlined by deprecating a few constructs 
that can be replaced easily by other parts of the model or which offered 
little practical value. These efforts were carried out in order to 
simplify implementation and improve model comprehensibility. While this 
creates some minor backwards incompatibility, the SIG preferred this 
over indefinitely carrying forward backlog of some initial decisions 
that were based on a different anticipation of the model’s future 
applications.


Finally, extensive and valuable editorial work by members of the SIG to 
apply consistent style rules and templates and to remove typos and 
difficult to understand phrases in the text. An emphasis in this work 
was to improve the quality of examples provided. Explanations and 
literature references were added to the real world examples for classes 
and properties so that readers can have full access to their context. 
Where examples had been missing, they have been added wherever possible. 
While over a year of effort has gone into this task, further corrections 
may arise as the document is examined by the community. The improvement 
of the document is an on-going process.


CIDOC CMR version 7.1 will be the basis for submission to ISO as a new 
community draft.


The semantic content of this version should, therefore, be regarded as 
stable, and as a basis for updating implementation and translations to 
other languages. As feedback comes in, minor editorial corrections may 
still occur which should not affect implementations and translations. 
The version will be presented in more detail in the next virtual SIG 
Meeting March 8, 2021, which I hope, many of you will attend.


Best wishes,

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: mar...@ics.forth.gr
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 511

[Robert Sanderson]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 5:54 AM Martin Doerr  wrote:

> My argument about measuring non-physical things is that it does not
> constitute an observation process, but an abstraction from observable
> things. We can always use Attribute Assignment for such evaluations. So, we
> can assign the word count to a text, without using E16 Measurement.
>

Understood, and agreed. The scope note for E16 is clear that is for
measuring "physical properties ... by ... direct observation of particular
states".

A word count would be an Attribute Assignment of the Dimension to the
Linguistic Object, potentially using a particular specific object as a
witness for the symbols. Of course, I can count symbols in my head, but
then I am not observing the symbols physically, and therefore it is not a
Measurement.

If I am not able to be at the SIG session where this is discussed, please
count this as my vote in favor of the resolution of the issue.

Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] 49th CIDOC CRM & 42nd FRBR CRM sig meeting; 8-11 March 2021; draft agenda

[E. Tsoulouha]

Dear all, 

For the (draft) agenda of the 49th CIDOC CRM & 42nd FRBR CRM sig
meeting, click on the link below: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ytiKUXQ3QwcTA9fWqS8NUDdBh-OP02e5/view?usp=sharing


If you have any questions or suggestions, do not hesitate to contact us
by replying to this email. 

All the best, 
Eleni 

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 49th CIDOC CRM & 42nd FRBR CRM sig meeting; 8-11
March 2021
Date: 2021-02-26 11:55
From: "E. Tsoulouha" 
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Cc: Stephen Stead 

Dear all,

As announced earlier on the SIG list, the 49th CIDOC CRM SIG meeting
will take place between 8-11 March 2021 on Zoom. 
Below you may find a (very) draft program for the meeting (i.e. subject
to changes): 

8 March: CIDOC CRM issues (14.00-15.45 CET), CRMarchaeo issues
(16.15-18.00 CET)
9 March: CRMsci +Family models issues (14.00-15.45 CET), Community
Discussion issues/Feedback (16.15-18.00 CET)
10 March: LRMoo (14.00-15.45 CET), LRMoo (16.15-18.00 CET)
11 March: Presentations (14.00-15.45 CET), CIDOC CRM issues (16.15-18.00
CET)

The SIG would like to highlight that there is room in the schedule on
March 11th for presentations on research and on-going projects / work
related to CIDOC CRM. 

If groups or individuals would like to present their work (and
questions) involving CIDOC CRM, please contact beki...@ics.forth.gr and
tsoulo...@ics.forth.gr in order to indicate that you would like to
present, along with the topic of your presentation by October 11th. Just
a title for your presentation is needed, no abstract of additional
information. Presentations usually take approximately half an hour and
can be used as a means to engage the CRM community  as well as to
receive input from  and offer experience to the CIDOC CRM SIG. 

Looking forward to seeing you at our next virtual CRM SIG.

All the best,
Eleni 

On 2021-02-16 10:38, E. Tsoulouha wrote: 

> Dear all,
> 
> According to your responses on the doodle, the CIDOC CRM sig meeting
> will take place between 8-11 March 2021 (Monday through Thursday) on
> Zoom.
> Each working day will take up to 4 hours (estimated from 14.00 -18.00
> CET).
> 
> An outline of the agenda will be shared within next week.
> 
> All the best,
> Eleni Tsouloucha
> 
> On 2021-01-20 11:38, Eleni Tsoulouha wrote: 
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> The CIDOC-CRM editorial group propose to hold the next meeting in
>> the
>> week 8-12 March 2021. It will be an online event, of course.
>> 
>> We're planning for a 4-day meeting, each working day taking up to 4
>> hours (estimated from 14.00 -18.00 CET) --to make it easier for
>> sig-members  overseas attend.
>> 
>> Please mark your preferences in the doodle below:

https://doodle.com/poll/2u82ruxd2mmgi8a3?utm_source=poll_medium=link


>> All the best,
>> 
>> Eleni Tsouloucha
 ___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig