Issue 483: 7.0 preparation - CRMbase review for inconsistencies

ID: 
483
Starting Date: 
2020-02-17
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

Posted by CEO on 23/2/2020

In order to submit to the ISO the amendments to the last ISO version (ISO 21127:2014), CEO reviewed the and check the scope notes for classes and properties of  CRMbase v.6.2.8 for inconsistencies.  

 

 

Current Proposal: 

In the 46th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 39th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; The sig accepted   all additions of *instance(s) of* prior to identifiers for classes across the document and  reviewed the proposed comments suggested by CEO.  Notes were kept during the meeting in the CEO's copy file. The minutes on this issue can be found here.

Also the crm-sig, concerning the  Examples missing from definitions of classes and properties, decided that they have to be filled before the next CRM sig meeting. They are either to be treated in a separate issue or as part of this one. 
CRM-sig asked CB shared with the sig a list of the classes and properties lacking examples and assigned HW to MD and SS to provide with examples. 

Athens, February 2020

Posted by Martin on 1/4/2020

Checking the minutes:

"E4 Period

DECISION: the paragraph below, was marked *to be deleted*. The sig decided to delete it for the moment, and assigned MD [HW] to check if it was alright to delete it after all.

Consequently, an instance of E4 Period may occupy a number of disjoint spacetime volumes, however there must not be a discontinuity in the timespan covered by these spacetime volumes. This means that an instance of E4 Period must be contiguous in time. If it has ended in all areas, it has ended as a whole. However, it may end in one area before another, such as in the Polynesian migration, and it continues as long as it is ongoing in at least one area"

I encounter the following problem:

An STV is allowed to be a finite set of contiguous volumes. That allows Periods, such as France, to spread over separate Places, as intended.

E53 Place does not define it to be contiguous. No problem, but it could cause ambiguity, is a spatial projection is one or more places.

STV however in not defined contiguous in time, but has a contiguous temporal projection. That can be understood indirectly to require contiguity in time, and Periods to be contiguous in time as required.

We allow intersections of STVs with places and STVs to be STVs. That can create STVs that are not contiguous in time. Whereas intersections of STVs contiguous in time with time-spans = Presence, must be contiguous in time.

Solution:

Forbid in scope note of STV the intersections with STV and Place.

Make explicit that an instance of E53 Place can be a finite set of contiguous areas.

Make explicit in E4 Period that they are contiguous in time.

OR: Require that E4 Period are STVs which are contiguous in time. That would mean that intersections of Periods are STVs but not Periods. That should be OK, and can be noted in the scope note of E4.

Then, temporal projections of STV may be sets of time-spans. Is increasing cardinality OK? How to express incomplete knowledge in this case?

Posted by Martin on 8/4/2020

Dear All,

I hope this finds you all well!

Here my rewriting of P121, P122. Since the temporal overlap properties disappeared, I stressed the the fact that the Roman Empire overlaps with the Federal Republic of Germany, which scholars may object to, confusing STV with E53 Place.

I changed one example of P121, to stress the case of one country occupying an area of another one, which causes a spatial overlap.

Posted by Martin 15/4/2020

Dear All,

Here my analysis of transitivity.
 

Posted by Martin on 4/5/2020

P102 has title (is title of)

Domain:              E71 Human-Made Thing

Range:                E35 Title

Subproperty of:   E1 CRM Entity. P1 is identified by (identifies): E41 Appellation

Quantification:    many to many (0,n:0,n)

 

Scope note:         This property associates an instance of E35 Title has been applied to an instance of E71 Human-Made Thing.

The P102.1 has type property of the P102 has title (is title of) property enables the relationship between the title and the thing to be further clarified, for example, if the title was a given title, a supplied title etc.

It allows any human-made material or immaterial thing to be given a title. It is possible to imagine a title being created without a specific object in mind.

Examples:          

§  the first book of the Old Testament (E33) has title “Genesis” (E35)

has type translated (E55)

        NEW examples:     

§  Monet’s painting from 1868-1869 held by Musée d'Orsay, Paris, under inventory number RF 1984 164 (E24) has title “La Pie” (E35)

has type creator’s title (E55)

Posted by Martin on 5/5/2020

Dear All,

Attached my homework. I found it necessary to harmonize with P165 as well.

Best,

Martin 

Posted by Martin on 6/5/2020

Dear All,

Here my proposals for better examples of titles. I kindly ask our colleagues from IFLA to check or correct the terms I have used for the P102.1 property. Please comment.

Best,

Martin

P102 has title (is title of)

Domain:              E71 Human-Made Thing

Range:                E35 Title

Subproperty of:   E1 CRM Entity. P1 is identified by (identifies): E41 Appellation

Quantification:    many to many (0,n:0,n)

 

Scope note:         This property associates an instance of E35 Title has been applied to an instance of E71 Human-Made Thing.

 

The P102.1 has type property of the P102 has title (is title of) property enables the relationship between the title and the thing to be further clarified, for example, if the title was a given title, a supplied title etc.

It allows any human-made material or immaterial thing to be given a title. It is possible to imagine a title being created without a specific object in mind.

Examples:          

  • the first book of the Old Testament (E33) has title “Genesis” (E35)

has type translated (E55)

    NEW:         

  • Monet’s painting from 1868-1869 held by Musée d'Orsay, Paris, under inventory number RF 1984 164 (E24) has title “La Pie” (E35)

has type creator’s title (E55)

 

  • Monet’s painting from 1868-1869 held by Musée d'Orsay, Paris, under inventory number RF 1984 164 (E24) has title “The Magpie” (E35)

has type translation of creator’s title (E55)

 

  • The science fiction film directed by Ridley Scott from 1982 based on the novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” by Philip K. Dick (E73) has title “Blade Runner” (E35)

has type creator’s title (E55)  [Michael Deeley, the producer, bought the title for “a nominal fee,” from William Burroughs, who had written a book called Blade Runner (https://www.vulture.com/2017/10/why-is-blade-runner-the-title-of-blade-runner.html)]

  • The painting by Matthias Grünewald from 1516AD, permanently exhibited in the church Mariä Krönung in Stuppach, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany (E24) has title “Die Stuppacher Madonna” (E35)

has type vernacular, popular title (E55) [The work has no known title from the artist. It is currently named              after its current place of exhibition]

Posted by Martin on 6/5/2020

Dear All,

Here my attempt to harmonize E33 Linguistic Object with P190 and P165.

Obviously, the question of how to define a symbolic specificity for the identity of some symbolic object different from that of one of its representative resources has not been solved sufficiently.

Please comment.