Issue 268: Coins 2 CRM (again)

Starting Date: 
2014-11-19
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

Posted by Dan Matei on   19/11/2014

Dear Maria

Thanks you. I've read your (very useful) London presentation:

http://www.slideshare.net/MariaTheodoridou/london-meetup2014-mappingchi2...

and I plan to take advantage of the mapping: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/3M

But I'm tempted to treat the coins as exemplars of an "issue", i.e.

<F5_Item> <crm:R7_is_example_of> <crm:F3_Manifestation_Product_Type>

IMHO, a thing like:

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).cl.31

is a F3, mutatis mutandis.

When you did your mapping did you considered something like this ? And which were the arguments against ?

Posted by Christian Emil  on 19/11/2014

The FRBRoo models mass production, surely. However, the scope note of F3_Manifestation_Product_Type clearly states that the scope of this sub class of E55 Type is limited to the production of something carrying information. The scope of F3_Manifestation_Product_Type comprises books, prints, videos, and all kind of items carrying information (usually found in libraries).

Surely a coin carries information and coins are usually mass produced (today automatically) earlier by hand (by hammer and stamp(s)). When coins are seen as information carriers with information carried by them, they can be or  should  model in FRBRoo. If one is not interested in this aspect then model in Maria's presentation is fine.  It describes the coin as a produced artefact.

Posted by Maria Theodoridou on 20/11/2014

Dear Dan,

Indeed we have considered your thoughts and  we have defined as extensions for the coins and later for the CRM:

    E12 Production. PC1 produced things of type: E55 Type
    E22 Man-Made Object. PC2 is example of: E55 Type

Both PC1 and PC2 are subproperties of P2 has type

The above are depicted in slide 23 in my presentation where I describe how we modeled the categorical production.

We believe that PC1 and PC2 are a generalization of R26 produced things of type and R7 is example of of FRBR.
FRBR is not suitable for our coin modeling since it refers to bibliographic information, as Christian-Emil pointed out.

It is open for discussion  if there is a need for generalizing F32 Manifestation Product Type

This is a topic for future discussion in CRM-SIG.

Posted by Christian Emil on 20/11/2014

My view is that a coin is an information carrier and indeed is of the category of objects found and stored  in a library

Posted by Stephen Stead on 20/11/2014

I am not entirely convinced that this statement is true. The intension of the coins creator is probably not to carry the immaterial object about, but to perform the function of enabling trade. The immaterial object is a mechanism for conveying authenticity. I agree that some coins carry immaterial objects and that these can presumably be part of a Work and Expression family.
A commemorative medal would be a contender for being an information carrier as it is designed to carry the commemorative inscription but not so sure about coins and I would definitely say that tokens (with no design) would fall outside the scope of information carrier.
If we want to say that coins are E84 Information Carriers then we may need to revise the scope note.

Posted by Martin on 20/11/2014

On 20/11/2014 7:01 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> My view is that a coin is an information carrier and indeed is of the category of objects found and stored  in a library
> C-E
Dear Christian-Emil,

of course we can argue that there is information on it, but we do not acquire
coins to get access to the "Expression" on it. A coin would be functional even without any
information on it. May be we overstrech the notion of "Expression" in this case? Of course, the coin
by its shape represents a symbol, but this symbol classifies the coin. If I have 10 copies of Shakespeare,
I would not argue to have acquired more Shakespeare, as I would with 10 Euro coins.

It appears to me, that there is not enough similarity to classify a coin as a Manifestation Product Type.

Opinions? 

Posted by Dan Matei on 20/11/2014

Hm...

If Manifestation Product Type is restricted to "expression carrier", then please invent something similar for coins/medals/banknotes. There are so many in museums :-)

There is a "Product Type" some numismats call "series", others call "issue". Look at the American Numismatic Society (e.g. http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).aug.2A a "Product Type" with 5 items).

In practice, I would not be confortable with generic Types having properties like "has_axis" or "has_edge_legend".

Dan

Posted by Dominic Oldman on 20/11/2014

Didn't Augustus issue coins with political messages specifically for communication or "propaganda" purposes. (e.g.Augustus and the Republic). The intention might have been more orientated to the message?

I expect this message purpose was/is quite common on coins and notes.

Incidentally, my daughter has a collection of Olympic 50p coins. They are standard currently coins rather than simply commemorative but have different sport scenes. Although I think she might have spent them now. :-)

D

Posted by Thomas Wikman  on 20/11/2014

A n00b question.

How do you extend this into crypto currencies when an transaction is not even represented by a coin. It’s just a currency. From this point of view a coin is just some sort of instance of a currency. Older ones are:

* Barter
* Coins
* Bills
* etc

best / tw

Old Proposal: 

Posted by Christian Emil on 20/11/2014 

Dear Martin,
I see your and Stephen's point. Shakespeare may be considered as a result a work of the Allmighty though. Ten copies of Shakespeare may represent a lot of Euros.

The design of the faces of  a coin is usually the result of a human's intentional work.
F2 Expression:
" This class comprises the intellectual or artistic realisations of works in the form of identifiable immaterial objects, such as texts, poems, jokes, musical or choreographic notations, movement pattern, sound pattern, images, multimedia objects, or any combination of such forms that have objectively recognisable structures. The substance of F2 Expression is signs."

From the view point of Art History the surface design of a coin can be of interest. The function of a coin is usually to be a symbol of a hopefully mutual agreed value. The same is the case of a postage stamp, still the design of the surface can be a piece of art (as can the surface of a coin). What is the denotation of 'image' in the above scopenote?

This is not a big issue for me. However, it may be so that many of us have just one view on a coin - as a the symbol of the value. I am not sure all numismatists will agree on that.

Posted by Dan Matei on 20/11/2014

... not to mention COWS :-)

http://storyarchaeology.com/cows-as-currency/

On 20 November 2014 22:31, Wikman Thomas <thomas@wikman.org> wrote:

    A n00b question.

    How do you extend this into crypto currencies when an transaction is not even represented by a coin. It’s just a currency. From this point of view a coin is just some sort of instance of a currency. Older ones are:

    * Barter
    * Coins
    * Bills
    * etc

    best / tw

Posted by Stephen Stead  on 21/11/2014

Would that be “Billy the Cow”?

Rgds

SdS

NB Only attendees to my tutorials will get this joke!

Posted by Simon Spero on 21/11/2014

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore <c.e.s.ore@iln.uio.no> wrote:

    The design of the faces of  a coin is usually the result of a human's intentional work.
    F2 Expression:
    " This class comprises the intellectual or artistic realisations of works in the form of identifiable immaterial objects, such as texts, poems, jokes, musical or choreographic notations, movement pattern, sound pattern, images, multimedia objects, or any combination of such forms that have objectively recognisable structures. The substance of F2 Expression is signs."

I think that substance is also a useful concept here. 

I would postulate that for CRM purposes, ten €100 gold coins struck in the 3rd year of the reign of Emperor Millibus,  displayed by a museum on Great Russell Brand St, then seized, melted down, struck in the form of  ten 100 Farange coins, then returned and displayed, would be considered to be the same ten coins, even though they are constituted of the same gold.

Similarly, if half of the euro coins are swapped with indistinguishable coins from the same issue, the collection before and after would not be considered to be unchanged. 

If one accepts this stance, then it follows that each coin is considered to be an individual.  It is possible that one might consider the sets of coins to also be individuals.

If the exchange rate is pegged at €1 = 1 Farange, the intrinsic and fiat value all the sets of coins is the same.  In a CHO context this ought not to affect ones stance on the identity of the two sets (in a CHF setting, different concepts may apply).

Coins were created to express  propositions ("This thing weighs <x units>", "This thing is made of Electrum", "Made in Lydia", "Lions are cool").  They are information bearing objects, and this information distinguishes the coinage from an equivalent weight of metal.  (I would consider them to be documents, but that stance is not necessary) 

Simon

[ I use future hypotheticals to allow for knowledge of the coins history without requiring time travel. However,
http://davidtennantontwitter.blogspot.com/2012/07/david-tennant-doctor-w...

Current Proposal: 

Posted by Christian-Emil on 6/2/2015

Some notes on Issue 268 and 269
These two issues are about mass produced objects and how to model them in a CRM and FRBRoo setting.

The discussion started with coins, bank notes and stamps. The intended function of objects of all three categories is to be value symbols. On the other hand, they can be viewed as mass produced object where the design, the designer and motif can be of interest for scholars in history, art history and cultural studies, (e.g German notgeld from 1920ies http://notgeld.meulie.net/) .  The can also be kept in museums, libraries and archives.  This can be extended to mass produced object for example design by famous persons like Alvar Aalto, Le Corbusier, etc.  The design of such object are protected through legislation for industrial design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design) The PIXAR lamp logo was taken from a Norwegian lamp producer and resulted in a law suit (http://glamox.com/upload/2012/02/14/_l1-360x240.png).

To my understanding industrial design and mass produced objects are in the scope of CRM/FRBRoo. CRM is not developed to tackle the complexity and FRBRoo is perhaps too focused on bibliographical data.  In these notes (I apologies for typos and language errors) I look a little into the problem complex. My conclusion is that FRBRoo can almost model documentation about design and mass produced object. F3 Manifestation Product Type is the most problematic. A solution can be to adjust FRBRoo or make a very small extenstion

Chr-Emil

*************************************************************

CIDOC-CRM does not model intellectual objects in a detail. Still it is possible to use the type system model artefacts produced in large numbers, for example coins by simply stating that a coin has a given type in a predefined numismatic nomenclature, that is, a coin catalogue.
It is possible in CRM to model the process of defining types. For example CIDOC-CRM can be used to model the species definition in natural history museums, see  for example http://www.edd.uio.no/nedlasting/cidoc/tdwg2005_Lampe_Ore_final.pdf

****************** Industrial (mass) production ****************
CRM can also be used to model a production process. The class E12 Production can be given a type describing both the process and the kind of products.

In an email 22.11.2014 Maria Theodoridou refers to an extension of CRM:

E12 Production. PC1 produced things of type: E55 Type
E22 Man-Made Object. PC2 is example of: E55 Type

Both PC1 and PC2 are subproperties of P2 has type

Maria writes that the idea is that the property PC2 is similar to R7 and PC1 is similar to R26 respectively in FRBRoo.

Definition in  FRBRoo:

F3 Manifestation Product Type is a sub class of E55 Type

F5 Item. R7 is example of  F3 Manifestation Product Type.
R7 is a subproperty of  E1 CRM Entity. P2 has type (is type of): E55 Type

E32 Carrier Production Event. R26 produced things of type F3 Manifestation Product Type
R26 is a subproperty of E12 Production. P108 has produced: E24 Physical Man-Made Thing. P2 has type: E55 Type

(Digression:   The '.1'- properties having properties as domain and E55 Type as range. It can be seen as a shorthand for defining sub properties of a basic property. The '.1'-properies  are not sub properties of any standard property since a property is not a an instance of  E1 CRM Entity. There is no CRM class E??? Property. All sub properties of for example  "E12 Production. P108 has produced: E24 Physical Man-MadeThing"  must have  domain  E12 Production or a subclass of E12, similar for the range. At least according to my understanding of the intention behind '.1'-properties the super property of R26 is not well defined. This is not a part of the actual issues, but one may consider to revise the definition of R26 and to make it a sub property of P2.)

If one introduces PC1 and PC2 in CRM and makes R26 into a sub property of P2 then R7 and R26 can be sub properties of PC2 and PC1 respectively.

************* The intellectual process connected to mass production ***********

There are many museums having departments and exhibitions focusing on design. The objects can typically be exemplars of mass produced objects like furniture, plates, glasses, clothing etc. The objects are examples of the design and may not have special interest as unique artefacts. The focus is on the design, designers, material and cultural context and influence. The documentation is not unlike what one may find in a good FRBR based library catalogue.

CIDOC-CRM is not sufficiently developed to model this. FRBRoo is, but has a library/bibliographical point of view? This is true and not true. For example in the scope note for F1 Work there are three examples, etching, three dimensional sculpture and a play:

Abstract content of Giovanni Battista Piranesi's 'Carcere XVI: the pier with chains: 1st state' (F14)

'La Porte de l'Enfer' by Auguste Rodin conceived between 1880 and 1917 (F15)

'Hamlet' by William Shakespeare (F15)

These three examples could have been used throughout the definition of FRBRoo down to the physical item/manifestation singleton level. Unfortunately the sculpture disappears. In FRBRoo the unique materialization of 'La Porte de l'Enfer' can be a manifestation singleton like a medieval manuscript on parchment is. 

Consider mass produced copies of a Rodin statue. The idea behind these can be modelled as a work being a member of a complex work also containing the original work by Rodin. This is similar to a printed comic version of Hamlet and the original play. In FRBRoo we can model the process behind the mass production of Rodin copies to a large degree.

F3 Manifestation Product Type is problematic, see the scope notes at the end of this text. The first paragraph of F3 Manifestation Product Type is ok. The second is very specific for texts publication. There is an author, a publisher, publication, hardcover, paperback. Mass produced items like statuettes are clearly out of the scope of F3 Manifestation Product Type.

The scope note of F24 Publication expression is focused on signs and the wording does not seem to include things like mas produced statuettes. However, the third example in the scope note describes the publication expression for a two dvd box, so the Rodin copy statuettes should be in scope.

In general mass produced objects (of artistic value) can be launched at a given date. They are not published. So the wording in FRBRoo does not fit.

****************************

F3 Manifestation Product Type
This class comprises the definitions of publication products.
An instance of F3 Manifestation Product Type is the "species", and all copies of a given object are "specimens" of it. An instance of F3 Manifestation Product Type defines all of the features or traits that instances of F5 Item normally display in order that they may be recognised as copies of a particular publication. However, due to production problems or subsequent events, one or more instances of F5 Item may not exhibit all these features or traits; yet such instances still retain their relationship to the same instance of F3 Manifestation Product Type.
The features that characterise a given instance of F3 Manifestation Product Type include: one instance of F24 Publication Expression, containing one or more than one instance of F2 Expression, reflecting the authors' content of the manifestation and all additional input by the publisher; and the appropriate types of physical features for that form of the object. For example, hardcover and paperback are two distinct publications (i.e. two distinct instances of F3 Manifestation Product Type) even though authorial and editorial content are otherwise identical in both publications. The activity of cataloguing aims at the most accurate listing of features or traits of an instance of F3 Manifestation Product Type that are sufficient to distinguish it from another instance of F3 Manifestation Product Type.

F24 Publication Expression
This class comprises complete sets of signs present in publications, reflecting publishers' final decisions as to both selection of content and layout of the publications. Frequently the creation of a Publication Expression includes both adding graphical form and fonts to Expressions consisting of words alone and selecting illustrations and other content. As such, an instance of Publication Expression incorporates all Expressions combined for the resulting final form of rendering, whether visual, audio or tactile. An instance of Publication Expression is one entity regardless of the number of independent Expressions published within it, as long as it represents one unit of release. The published third party content can be associated via the property P165 incorporates (is incorporated in).

Third example
The overall content of the DVD entitled 'The Aviator (2-Disc Full Screen Edition)', released in 2004: Martin Scorsese's movie itself; layout of the box and the two DVDs contained in the box; pictures on the DVDs themselves; English, Spanish, and French subtitles; English and French audio tracks; and bonuses: commentaries by director Martin Scorsese, editor Thelma Schoonmaker, and producer Michael Mann; a deleted scene ('Howard Tells Ava About His Car Accident'); and featurettes 'A Life Without Limits: The Making of The Aviator'; 'The Role of Howard Hughes in Aviation History'; 'Modern Marvels: Howard Hughes, A Documentary by the History Channel'; 'The Visual Effects of The Aviator'; 'The Affliction of Howard Hughes: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder'; 'The Age of Glamour: The Hair And Makeup of The Aviator'; 'Costuming The Aviator: The Work of Sandy Powell'; 'Constructing The Aviator: The Work of Dante Ferretti'; 'An evening with Leonardo DiCaprio and Alan Alda'; 'OCD Panel Discussion With Leonardo DiCaprio, Martin Scorsese, and Howard Hughes' Widow Terry Moore'; 'Still Gallery'; 'Scoring The Aviator: The Work Of Howard Shore'; and 'The Wainwright Family - Loudon, Rufus and Martha'

In the 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig decided to merge the issues 268 and 269. The working one will be the 268. Then we discussed about mass produced objects and how to model them in a CRM.  We made the following design in the board

 

The sig have assigned to CEO and Patrick to formulate this as a class in CRM

Oxford, February 2015

Posted by Christian Emil on 1/5/2015

Dear all,

As a part of the homework Patrick and I were asked to have a look into how to adjust FRBRoo to model other mass produced objects than 'publication products*.  This issue is related and may be a part of the answer to this question.

The current scope note of E55 Type is as follows

"This class comprises concepts denoted by terms from thesauri and controlled vocabularies used to characterize and classify instances of CRM classes. Instances of E55 Type represent concepts  in contrast to instances of E41 Appellation which are used to name instances of CRM classes.

E55 Type is the CRM's interface to domain specific ontologies and thesauri. These can be represented in the CRM as subclasses of E55 Type, forming hierarchies of terms, i.e. instances of E55 Type linked via P127 has broader  term (has narrower term). Such hierarchies may be extended with additional properties."

A CRM-type is a concept  (a  E28 Conceptual object in CRM) . A CRM-type represents or denotes a hypothetical set of other instances (members of) of CRM classes. The set is hypothetical in since we don't know all its members. Ontologically we assume that there exists a procedure that makes it possible to catalog or characterize an instance to belong to (P2 has type) to the set denoted by the concept. For example: In Natural History (systematical biology) every species definition (in CRM a species is a E55 Type) , has to prescribe explicitly or implicitly a procedure how to decide that that a specimen belongs to a given species. This procedure is an intellectual object and can in CRM be modelled as an instance of E73 Information Object and as such it is an E72 Legal Object. The procedure may be controlled by rights and legislation, the type not.

Last year Dan Matei raised the issue of how model coins and coin production.
Maria Theodoridou referred to how they in a project extended CRM with 

"E12 Production. PC1 produced things of type: E55 Type
E22 Man-Made Object. PC2 is example of: E55 Type
Both PC1 and PC2 are subproperties of P2 has type"

In general a (mass) event is  modelled in CRM by  an instance of P12 Production (subclass of P11 Modification). The property

E11 Modification P33 used specific technique E29 Design or Procedure

Is used to link the production event  ((P12 Production ) of physical things (E24 Physical Man-Made Thing) of a given type (E55 Type)to an information object (E29 Design or Procedure) describing how to make things of this type  (E55 Type).  The produced stuff (sorry thing) and the procedure how to produced it are legal objects (E72 Legal Object). The type of the produced thing is not.

The production of books is not different form the production of anything else. The printing (production ) of books (F5 Item) is modelled by an instance of

A) F32 Carrier Production Event
B) F32 Carrier Production Event - R26 produced things of type -  F3 Manifestation Product Type
C) F32 Carrier Production Event - R28 produced - F54 Utilized Information Carrier
D) F54 Utilized Information Carrier  - R7 is example of - F3 Manifestation Product Type
E) F32 Carrier Production Event - R27 used as source - P24 Publication Expression
F) E11 Modification P33 used specific technique E29 Design or Procedure

F32 Carrier Production Event is a subclass of E12 Production
F3 Manifestation Product Type is a subclass of E55 Type
F54 Utilized Information Carrier is a subclass of E71 Man Made Thing

R27 used as source is a subproperty of E7 Activity - P16 used specific object - E70 Thing
R26 produced things of type is a kind of sub class of P2 has Type (defined as E12 Production. P108 has produced: E24 Physical Man-MadeThing. P2 has type: E55 Type
which may be considered identical to PC2 above)

>From this we see that the modelling of production of books in FRBRoo is neatly modelled as a specialization of the more general production in CRM. However there is one important difference: The type of the items produced is a legal object. This may be a mix up of the concept 'design' as what characterize objects, the 'design' as the prescription of how to make things of this type and the process of developing this prescription. In the current FRBRoo we may have used to much energy on long and detailed the formulation of the scope note of  F3 Manifestation Product Type instead of giving the E29 Design or Procedure connected to the production of a items of a given type a more prominent place.

F3 Manifestation Product Type is simply a subtype of E55 Type and should not be a legal object.


Posted by Christian Emil on 4/5/2015

Dear all,
Apparently I have the bad habit of posting before I have proofread and checked the text. I apologize for that. Hopefully this version is clearer and has fewer errors.

C-E

As a part of the homework Patrick and I were asked to have a look into how to adjust FRBRoo to model other mass produced objects than 'publication products'.
The issue discussed in this text is related to that homework and may be a part of the answer. The conclusion in the present note is that it may not be correct that E3 Manifestation Product Type should be a subclass of E72 Legal Object.

******************
TYPES and E55 TYPE

The current scope note of E55 Type is as follows

"This class comprises concepts denoted by terms from thesauri and controlled vocabularies used to characterize and classify instances of CRM classes. Instances of E55 Type represent concepts in contrast to instances of E41 Appellation which are used to name instances of CRM classes.

E55 Type is the CRM's interface to domain specific ontologies and thesauri. These can be represented in the CRM as subclasses of E55 Type, forming hierarchies of terms, i.e. instances of E55 Type linked via P127 has broader term (has narrower term). Such hierarchies may be extended with additional properties."

A CRM-type (instance of E55 Type) is a concept (a E28 Conceptual object in CRM). A CRM-type represents or denotes a hypothetical set of other instances (members of) of CRM classes. The set is hypothetical in the sense that we don't know all its potential members.

Ontologically we assume that there exists a procedure that makes it possible to catalog, characterize or decide whether an instance of a CRM class belongs to (P2 has type) to the set denoted by the concept. For example:

In Natural History (systematical biology) every species definition (in CRM a species is an instance of E55 Type), has to prescribe explicitly or implicitly a procedure how to decide that a specimen belongs to a given species. This procedure is an intellectual object and can in CRM be modelled as an instance of E73 Information Object and consequently of E72 Legal Object. The procedure may be controlled by rights and legislation. The type, that is, the concept of the hypothetical set of specimens in the nature is not.

***********
MASS PRODUCTION, COINS AND THE CLASS F3 MANIFESTATION PRODUCT TYPE IN FRBRoo

Last year Dan Matei raised the issue of how model coins and coin production. He suggested that F3 Manifestation Product Type could be used. F3 is specialized to publication products. Although many non book objects are found in libraries, e.g. CDs, DVDs, stamp and perhaps bank notes, it may be case problems if we extend F3 to cover all sets of items which can be found in a library and documented in a library documentation system? This issue will be discussed in other homework.

Here I will examine the model of book production found in FRBRoo as a specialization of the model of mass production found in CIDOC-CRM

As a reply to Dan Mateis's question Maria Theodoridou referred to how they had extended CRM with two properties to be able to model coins and coin production:

E12 Production. PC1 produced things of type: E55 Type
E22 Man-Made Object. PC2 is example of: E55 Type
Both PC1 and PC2 are subproperties of P2 has type"

******
In un-extended CIDOC- CRM a (mass) production can be modelled as follows:

A) The event for the production: P12 Production.

B) Categorization of production:  P12 Production P2, has E55 Type

C) The outcome of the production: P12 Production, P108 has produced (was produced by), E24 Physical Man-Made Thing

D) The categorization of the products: E24 Physical Man-Made Thing, has type E55Type

E) Physical source material: E7 Activity, P16 used specific object, E70 Thing

F) Immaterial source material, e.g., for books: E7 Activity, P16 used specific object, E70 Thing
G) The design or procedure to be followed in the production: E11 Modification P33 used specific technique E29 Design or Procedure

In this model instances of E29 Design or Procedure describes how to make things. The produced things are instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing. Both classes are subclasses of E72 Legal Object. The type (E55 Type) of the produced things is not.

***************
FRBRoo

The production of books is not different form the production of anything else. The printing (production) of books (F5 Item) is modelled as follows

A) The event for the production: F32 Carrier Production Event

B) Categorization of production: F32 Carrier Production Event, R26 produced things of type, F3 Manifestation Product Type

C) The outcome of the production: F32 Carrier Production Event, R28 produced, F54 Utilized Information Carrier

D) The categorization of the products: F54 Utilized Information Carrier, R7 is example of, F3 Manifestation Product Type

E) Physical source material: E7 Activity, P16 used specific object, E70 Thing

F) Immaterial source material: F32 Carrier Production Event, R27 used as source, P24 Publication Expression

G) E7 Activity P33 used specific technique E29 Design or Procedure

*****************
Relation to the general model of un-extended CIDOC-CRM

* F32 Carrier Production Event is a subclass of E12 Production

* F3 Manifestation Product Type is a subclass of E55 Type

* F54 Utilized Information Carrier is a subclass of E71 Man Made Thing

* F32 Carrier Production, R27 used as source, P24 Publication Expression is a subproperty of E7 Activity, P16 used specific object, E70 Thing

* F32 Carrier Production Event, R26 produced things of type, F3 Manifestation Product Type would be a subproperty of: E12 Production. PC1 produced things of type: E55 Type and finally a subproperty of P2 has type E55.

*  F54 Utilized Information Carrier, R7 is example of, F3 Manifestation Product Type would be a subproperty of E22 Man-Made Object. PC2 is example of: E55 Type and finally a subpropert of P2 has type E55.

 

**************
CONCLUSION

>From the outlines above we see that the model of production of books in FRBRoo is a specialization of the more general model of production in CRM. There some minor differences especially in the definition of the R26 being defined as a shortcut involving a property of a property. This is not important here. The most important difference is that F3 Manifestation Product Type is a subclass of E72 Legal Object in addition to being a subclass of E55 Type.

Is this a correct ontological analysis? IPR rights are clearly connected to the content modelled as an instance of P24 Publication Expression) the production plan resulting from the design process (layout, form, number of pages, use of material etc.) modelled as an instance E29 Design or Procedure). The concept that there is a certain set of books produced according to a common design and belonging to the same edition is not the subject of IPR.

F3 Manifestation Product Type is simply a subtype of E55 Type which can be used to catalog or characterize items. Similar to species not being legal objects (the structure of their DNA may be patentable), instances of F3 Manifestation Product Type should not be instances of E72 Legal Object.

If my argument is unsound, then we should introduce a general E?? Product Type which is a subclass of E 55 Type and of E72 Legal Object connected to E12 Production.


posted by Patrick on 15/5/2015

Dear Martin, dear Chryssoula,
During the last meeting I was asked to investigate whether there are cases where 'broader term / narrower term' relationships in library thesauri cannot be expressed using CIDOC CRM / FRBRoo properties. I am extremely late but eventually I managed to do that today, although the scope of my investigation is not very wide: I only looked at the BnF's subject authority file. But here is the result:

Also, I was to work with Christian Emil on the modelling of industrial product types. He did all the job, but two days ago I sent him the reply below; he didn't respond to it, and I'm not sure he received it. At any rate, I forward it to you, so that it can be examined during next week's meeting.
Tomorrow I'll strive to work on the notion of Core FRBRoo, which was the third item in my homework.
Best wishes,
Patrick


Posted by Christian Emil on 19/5/2015

Dear all,

Here is the document with Patricks's comments incorporated. Patrick and I have as slighly different view on F3 Manifestation Poduct Type.

My view is added as a comment in the running text.

regards,

Christian-Emil

In 34th CIDOC CRMand 27th FRBRoo  meeting, It is accepted the proposal: “to introduce a new class in CRM “Exx Production Type “ which should be a subclass of E55 Type only and  F3 Manifestation Product Type will be a subclass of this new class”.

Heraklion, October 2015


posted by Christian Emil on 31/7/2016

Dear all,
Please find a first atempt to full descriptions of the new class and the two new properties. We need some extra examples. I am slightly uncertain of the cardinality of  the properties. I have made them as weak as possible. The subproperties in FRBRoo is more restricted.


posted by Christian Emil on 28/11/2016

Dear all,
This  issue is a result of the mapping of a coin database to CRM where two properties, 'produced things of type' and 'is an exemplar' were suggested. I wrote the attached text where in addition to the two properties a sub type of E55 Type, called 'Exx Production Type'  was added.

The rationale was to make class(es) and properties in  crm being generalizations of

1) the class 'F3 Manifestation Product Type' of FRBRoo

2) F32 Carrier Production Event  R26 produced things of type (was produced by): F3 Manifestation Product Type

3) F5 Item:  R7 is example of (has example): F3 Manifestation Product Type


Martin used Occam's razor and we decided to remove the Px2 is example of (has example) in the attached document. Argument: This is an unnecessary specialization of 'P2 has type'. 

We also discussed the class Exx Product Type, and my very general definition was criticized because it was too general, which it definitely is. A shared homework was to write a more specific definition.  I have pondered about such a production type.  It may be meaningful to define a type, that is a concept,  for things that can be produced in an industrial process?  The hypothetical extension of the type will be the subset of instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing which can be produced in an industrial process. ON the other hand  I have problems in finding  an instance of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing which is not the result of (P108 was produced by) some  E12 production. E12 production covers all constructions of objects done (indirectly) by humans. May be it is better to drop Exx Production type which was intended to be the type of objects produced and not the event.

Correspondingly, one may argue that class 'F3 Manifestation Product Type' could be dropped. All the categorical properties could be expressed by an instance of E29 Design or Procedure.

Comments? I may be wrong as always.

has been sent by Martin on 29/11/2016

I agree with Christian-Emil that there is no point in describing a Type with only property to be result of a production event. That would be redundant, and against all our modeling practice.

I regard it as more and more important when we declare a new class to be clear about the potential properties of
interest it confines.

For the (industrial) product type, like car models, I see the following important features that are not common to all produced things:

They are functionally and aesthetically equivalent and interchangable: I can read in my copy of Platon ISBNxxx until page 35, and continue in your copy on page 36, without causing any difference to what I learn, as long as no personal marks are added. We can exchange Euro coins without loss (at least from the same mint).

At the human senses, they appear often as indistiguishable without closer examination, at least when they are new, or we are not even interested in distinguishing them, for instance forks in a cutlery set. They are made not to be distinguished, except for serial numbers.

They are produced in series using tools that ensure this functional and aesthetic equivalence. These tools are often specific to the particular product type: mold, print plates, etc., and of particular interest, because they transfer information - design, depictions and texts. This information content is intrinsic to the type. This holds for coins, mass-produced Roman oil lamps, car models, editions of books etc. Modern 2D,3D printing allows for keeping the information in data, rather than creating a physical tool.

Acquiring an instance of precisely this type can be of cultural relevance, and are paid for being BlaBla-design, even though mass produced, because they 100% implement the famous designer's idea.

They require in any case a repeatable plan. In antiquity, they were rather rare, but Emperor Qin Shi Huang's army had some million crossbows with exchangeable spare parts

I suggest:

Exx Product Type:

This classes comprises types that characterize instances of E.. Man-Made Object that are the result of production activities using the same exact plans intending to result in series of uniform, functionally and aesthetically identical and interchangeable items. In particular, component parts are typically interchangeable. Frequently, their uniform production is achieved by creating individual tools, such as molds or print plates, that are themselves carriers of the design of the product type. Modern tools may use the flexibility of electronically controlled devices to achieve such uniformity. The product type itself, i.e., the potentially unlimited series of aestetically equivalent items, may be the target of artistic design, rather than the individual object. In extreme cases, only one instance of a product type may have been produced, such as in a "print on demand" process. However, this should not be confused with industrial prototypes, such as car prototypes, which are produced prior to the production line being set up, or test the production line itself.

Proposed properties: A unique plan, a required, unique tool.
 

has been sent by Christian Emil on 30/11/2016

Dear all,

I have no problem in following Martin's row of argument, but:

a)       I am no nominalist and types seems to be necessary for human communication and thinking. In general I am skeptical to put so much meaning into a category(=Type).  I In natural history a type can be a species and the best definition of a species is “a hypothetical set of individuals that have something in common” The something is usually described in the defining paper (and modelled as an information object). There are no categorical properties. IN FRBRoo there are a lot of such connected to Manifestation Product type, which in my opinion is not a functional way to analyse the publication process.

b)       The class production comprises all kinds of human creation of physical objects also unique object like handicraft or a pile of cut sandwiches for lunch, wrapped in paper or my gingerbread house for Christmas. Maybe it is better to create a subclass of E.. Production, confined to intended mass production of identical objects and use this class as the domain for a property to (Mass) Production Type if we really want to introduce the type.

has been sent by Martin on 30/11/2016

Dear Christian-Emil,

Let me disagree:

On 30/11/2016 9:59 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have no problem in following Martin's row of argument, but:
>
> a)       I am no nominalist and types seems to be necessary for human communication and thinking. In general I am skeptical to put so much meaning into a category(=Type).  I In natural history a type can be a species and the best definition of a species is “a hypothetical set of individuals that have something in common” The something is usually described in the defining paper (and modelled as an information object). There are no categorical properties. IN FRBRoo there are a lot of such connected to Manifestation Product type, which in my opinion is not a functional way to analyse the publication process.
I would not confuse natural phenomena, such as species, with objects made intentionally. A sparrow has no intention to be a sparrow, and may interbreed with aother finch species occasionally, and regional variations form a continuum.

In the case of industrial models, one can ask for indemnity if the product does not fulfill the specs. Intentional properties have shown repatedly in the CRM and FRBRoo to be more relevant than objective observables.

The discourse about the individuality of instances of product type, i.e., the details of features not determined by the plan and actual errors in executing the plan, is not in conflict with the product type.
I am in no way implying that instances of "product type" are equal.

I think the discussion if "product types" exist or not is not our problem. There is a cultural undeniable reality, what you expect when you order a car etc., philosophy or not. The question is how narrow we need to define it, so that we know what we talk about, not how widely. We still follow a bottom-up modelling approach, I believe?

If, on the other hand, you try to interpret the label, then we should change the discussion, and call it
"mass production type" or "industrial production type" etc. I thought we all agre not to interpret label, but adapt the labels after we know what we want to talk about.

I believe the plan cannot replace the type. That causes awful indirections, and another binding how strictly the plan is followed. I cannot tell the coin expert that his types do not exist, but that each individual coin has to be linked to a plan?
>
>
> b)       The class production comprises all kinds of human creation of physical objects also unique object like handicraft or a pile of cut sandwiches for lunch, wrapped in paper or my gingerbread house for Christmas. Maybe it is better to create a subclass of E.. Production, confined to intended mass production of identical objects and use this class as the domain for a property to (Mass) Production Type if we really want to introduce the type.
Again, I want to repeat that "product type" was not proposed to be a type of produced things.
I'd argue that a car model can be recognized, handled etc.  without any knowledge of the production process. In the case of print on demand, the mass production event may have produced only one book, but it is still a mass product. So, is it the activity, or the plan, or the type compatible with the plan, which ultimately characterizes the phenomenon?
 

has been sent by Martin on 1/12/2016

Dear Christian-Emil,

I include Carlo in this message, because we seem to need the "Risa" constraint by Anastasia Analyti
to exclude superproperties in their generic interpretation!

To continue on your thought about the process: Indeed in FRBRoo we have the binding between the carrier production event and ther manifestation product type. The quantification reads as:
R26 produced things of type (was produced by)

Domain:                 F32 Carrier Production Event

Range:                    F3 Manifestation Product Type

Subproperty of:     E12 Production.P108 produced: E24 Physical Man-MadeThing. P2 has type: E55 Type

Quantification:      (1:n,0:n)

Consequently, the F32 is limited to F3, but F3 not limited to F32. Consequently, we read that there may be F3's either never produced or produced by other E12's.

F32 Carrier Production Event

Subclass of:        E12 Production
Scope note:         This class comprises activities that result in instances of F5 Item coming into existence.

Now, F32 is bound to F5. An F5 can only appear due to an F32:

R28 produced (was produced by)

Domain:                 F32 Carrier Production Event

Range:                    F5 Item

Subproperty of:     E12 Production. P108 has produced (was produced by): E24 Physical Man-Made Thing

Quantification:      (0:n,1:1)

But an F32 may not produce an Item (is it implied that it does not produce anything then? do we exclude the inherited link from E12?)

Then,
F5 Item

Subclass of:        E84 Information Carrier

Scope note:         This class comprises physical objects (printed books, scores, CDs, DVDs, CD-ROMS, etc.) that carry a F24 Publication Expression and were produced by an industrial process involving a F3 Manifestation Product Type.

binds F5 to F3!

R7 is example of (has example)

Domain:                 F5 Item

Range:                    F3 Manifestation Product Type

Subproperty of:     E1 CRM Entity. P2 has type: E55 Type

Quantification:      (1:1,0:n)

So, is the "Mass Product Type" the egg or the hen? I'd argue, that the critical property is the plan and intention to produce like items and the specific technology to ensure this similarity, which would cause a distinction from handicraft, which is a social reality. That would make the Mass Product Type prior, and the Production event could be of a type enabling that (3D printing etc.), but not restricted to the mass production. Would that make sense?

Could we agree to send my proposed scope note for "Product Type" or "Mass Product Type" to crm-sig for the meeting? We are running out of time

Meetings discussed: