Issue 229: Correcting issue 156 (introduction of CRMsci)
Posted by Athina Kritsotaki 8/4/2013
Regarding the decision made on Issue 156 (that changed the range of "P39 measured"; to be E1 CRM Entity instead of E70 Thing) there seems to be an inconsistency in resolving that issue. Current proposal: As a consequence of moving the range from E70 to E1, should also be to move the domain of the property P43 has dimension (is dimension of): E54 Dimension from E70 to E1, in order to be consistent. By definition, the property P43 has dimension is a shortcut of the more fully developed path through P39 measured (was measured by) , E16 Measurement P40 observed dimension (was observed in) to E54 Dimension. So, think about this and comment.
Posted by Wolfgang Schmidle on 9/4/2013
What exactly is the question? Is this more than a mere technicality after the corresponding change to P39? Can one expect situations where this specific shortcut describes the Real World differently than the fully developed path?
And sorry for some additional questions that have probably been asked and answered before, but I don't fully understand Issue 156. Was the change introduced in order to measure E2 Temporal Entities? Why can E77 Persistent Item and its subclass E39 Actor now be measured when they couldn't be measured before?
What can be measured in a "proper" E1? Does the argument regarding E18 Physical Thing and its subclasses E19 Physical Object and E26 Physical Feature ("we forbid in the CRM to declare complements") also apply to E1 and its subclasses E2 and E77, and one would choose E1 if in doubt? Are the other subclasses (E52 Time-Span, E53 Place and E54 Dimension itself) also supposed to be measured with P43 / P39?
(Issue 159 was closed in 2008, but the change to P39 is apparently not yet included in the latest Cidoc version; why?)
And sorry again, but I don't understand the general relationship between measurements and counting. In Issue 157 (but not in the 5.1 draft) there is an example "Number of coins in a silver hoard" for E54 Dimension. So, is the process of counting just a specific kind of measurement, even if there is no measurement unit, i.e. an E54 with an E60 but no E58? Is counting included in the description "can be measured by some calibrated means" in the Scope note of E54? Why not use E60 directly without E54?
Is there, or should there be, a connection to P57 "has number of parts"? This seems to imply a counting process. Is it a measurement, too? Should P57 be a shortcut, too?
In the Scope note of E39: "Material and immaterial things and processes may be measured, e.g. the number of words in a text". (When counting words in a text, is there a measurement unit or not?) Why does P57 not apply here, apart from its domain being E19 Physical Object? And "An instance of E54 Dimension represents the true quantity": Is it even possible to assume a "true quantity" with a wobbly and language-specific concept such as "word"?
Posted by Athina Kritsotaki 10/4/2013
The proposal regarding issue 223 resolves an inconsistency, resulting by the definitions of the related concepts- since there was a decision then to measure everything, in order to be consistent with that, then everything should have (be able to have)a dimension (in the sense of E54, as it is defined in CRM (comprises quantifiable properties that can be measured and .. approximated by values.. in a mathematical or conceptual space,.. represents the true quantity, independent from its numerical approximation ..).
On the other hand, with respect to the question as to whether issue 156 correctly changed the range of P39 to E1, I believe, it is a different issue and has to be re-examined (in my opinion) (e.g you can measure an earthquake, but can you measure an idea? Or ,on second thought, do we actually refer to observations of events, processes and things, that some of them participate in measurements too?
Posted by vladimir.alexiev 17/4/2013
As a consequence of moving the range from E70 to E1, should also be to move the domain of the property P43 has dimension (is dimension of): E54 Dimension from E70 to E1, in order to be consistent
I quite agree with you.
See the thread from Nov 2011: http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/2011-November/001693.html with subject ISSUE: "P43 has dimension" should apply to E1 Entity, not E70 Thing
I'm sorry I didn't know about the related issue 156 at the time. I gave a number of examples from various areas, which were dismissed with Philosophical arguments.
When I asked directly about the domain inconsistency of P39 and P43: how do you explain this: "P39 measured" points to E1, "P43 has dimension" is a shortcut thereof, but P43 points lower than E1.
This was answered with the unbeatable argument of Convenience: P43 represents the common shortcut observed in existing documentation systems that measure particular Things
** The fact that this isn't entered into the issue list http://www.cidoc-crm.org/issues.php until until now ** is quite worrisome about the proper process in the CRM SIG mailing list.
Let's hope now that Athina raises it again (and even "reserved" next issue number), it will be entered in the list.
Martin Doerr will prepare a presentation about e-science context for revising the notion of observation, measurement and data evaluation.
28th CRM-SIG meeting Stockholm 7/6/2013
The CRM-SIG decided that the presented model about observation is complementary to the CIDOC CRM and it will be reviewed by the members of the SIG.
The proposed CRMsci model can be found here.
29th CRM-SIG meeting, Heraklion, October 2013
The 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, discussing about CRMsci, it is stated that there incompatibilities between CRMsci and CRM. Chryssoula will prepare a list of them.
Oxford, February 2015
In the 36th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 29th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig discussed about the harmonization of measurement between CRMsci and CIDOC CRM. This discussion will be treated in the issue 307. The work on the incompatibilities between CRMsci and the CIDOC CRM will continue and that each of the emerging incompatibilities will be treated as a new issue.
The issue remains open