Issue 332: Properties of S10 Material Substantial of CRMsci
Posted by Chryssoula on 23/3/2107
The class S10 Material Substantial of CRMsci has the following definition:
S10 Material Substantial
Subclass of: E70 Thing
Superclass of: S14 Fluid Body
S11 Amount of Matter
E18 Physical Thing
Scope note: This class comprises constellations of matter with a relative stability of any form sufficient to associate them with a persistent identity, such as being confined to certain extent, having a relative stability of form or structure, or containing a fixed amount of matter. In particular, it comprises physical things in the narrower sense and fluid bodies. It is an abstraction of physical substance for solid and non-solid things of matter.
P46 is composed of (forms part of): S10 Material Substantial
O15 occupied (was occupied by): E53 Place
It has been proposed in the past to move the CIDOC CRM properties P44, P45 and P46 from E18 Physical Thing to E70 Thing for facilitating their inheritance in S10. The decision of CRM SIG is still pending.
In the 38th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 31st FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig did not accepted the request of moving P44 and P45 to E18. It is proposed to discuss with Carlo on FOL model of relation constraints and CEO to consider how to create a logical construct that will model evolution of knowledge/expansion of domain range.
Heraklion, April 2017
Posted by Martin on 20/9/2017
I propose the following property for CRMSci:
O25 contains (is contained in)
Domain: S10 Material Substantial
Range: S10 Material Substantial
Superproperty of:E18 Physical Thing. P46 is composed of (forms part of): E18 Physical Thing
Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n)
Scope note: This property describes that an instance of S10 Material Substantial was or is contained for some time in another instance of S10 Material Substantial regardless if the identity of the involved instances is based on the persistence of the form of material or on material substance changing form.
In First Order Logic:
O25(x,y) ⊃ E18(x)
O25(x,y) ⊃ E18(y)
Posted by Franco on 20/9/2017
it looks very useful, but:
“O25 contains (is contained in)
[...] an instance of S10 Material Substantial was or is contained for some time in [...]”
Of course: 'X is contained in Y' means that X is contained in Y
Was the scope note proposed by M. de la Palisse?
Apart from that, it’s a great idea.
Posted by Martin on 20/9/2017
proposals welcome! One way to define it is the overlapping spatial extent. This comes in conflict with 2D surface features, except if we regard them not being infinitesimally thin. Another way is to define it by atoms. This comes again in conflict with 2D features, except if we regard surface molecules to carry the feature. If we regard pure form, we come in conflict with liquids in solid bodies, metabolism products etc. What about the content of a box, water in the sponge? The box "contains" but it is not part of it. I'd exclude that sense.
Posted by Martijn Van Leusen on 20/9/2017
Dear Martin and Franco,
here it is perhaps relevant that we (Tymon de Haas and me, working on the fieldwalking extension to CRMarchaeo) have decided that surface finds should be regarded as objects contained in a stratigraphical unit (typically, the unit 'plough layer'), hence not 'on' the surface of that unit.
I cannot think of any truly 2D surface features, what would be an example of them? A soil mark feature on an airphoto perhaps? But there would be an inferred 3D feature causing that....
Posted by Robert Sanderson on 20/9/2017
Dear Franco, Martin,
To make sure I understand your comment, are you pointing out the direction of the predicate is the opposite to the direction implied by the scope note? The predicate is that the subject X contains Y (X > Y) whereas the scope note expresses the relationship as the subject X being contained in Y (X < Y).
If so, then I agree it would be nice to change the text of the scope note to have it align with the relationship’s direction
Posted by Franco on 20/9/2017
No, no, as any CRM property it is bi-directional. Changing the direction in the scope note would be useful, but would not have any effect on my comment.
I was only making a joke on the tautological scope note, which explains (ahem) that the meaning of "O25 contains (is contained)" is exactly “is contained”.
This is meant to point out that scope notes are definitions and should be carefully drafted. In mathematics, you cannot define a triangle just as "a triangle", you need to state that it is "a polygon with three edges/vertices".
Reference to M. de la Palisse as possible author of the scope note is explained, a bit verbosely, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_La_Palice
Posted by Martin on 20/7/2017
On 9/20/2017 5:43 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear Franco, Martin,
> To make sure I understand your comment, are you pointing out the direction of the predicate is the opposite to the direction implied by the scope note? The predicate is that the subject X contains Y (X > Y) whereas the scope note expresses the relationship as the subject X being contained in Y (X < Y).
> If so, then I agree it would be nice to change the text of the scope note to have it align with the relationship’s direction
Right! but my comment was to substantiate what we mean by "containing".
Posted by Martin on 20/7/2017
On 9/20/2017 4:51 PM, van Leusen, P.M. wrote:
> Dear Martin and Franco,
> here it is perhaps relevant that we (Tymon de Haas and me, working on the fieldwalking extension to CRMarchaeo) have decided that surface finds should be regarded as objects contained in a stratigraphical unit (typically, the unit 'plough layer'), hence not 'on' the surface of that unit.
> I cannot think of any truly 2D surface features, what would be an example of them? A soil mark feature on an airphoto perhaps? But there would be an inferred 3D feature causing that....
Yes, agreed. If we regard 2D features, such as the face of a statue, as being thin but still extended in 3D, we can define O25 containment systematically by included matter.
Posted by Martin on 5/10/2017
This is my homework
In the 39th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 32nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting , the sig reviewed the examples in CRMsci proposed by MD and decided to add bibliography in APA style in footnotes. The sig made the following comments during the discussion
· On S10: New proposal accepted: S10 O25 contains S10 would be super property of P46
· About observation: To make a definition to CRMinf about observation.
· Situation is a construct of how to look in world and should go in CRMnf
· State is a construct of how long a thing did not change and should go to CRMinf
· We should make a second order theory for CRMsci
· The CRMsci should be focus over observation
HW assigned to check editing issues Athena, Achile , Thanasis
CEO will communicate with Carlo
Heraklion, October 2017
Posted by Thanasis on 11/1/2018
Please find attached a version with a few more examples from conservation, additions, changes and comments. I have not been involved from the beginning of the discussions for CRMsci, so if I am asking questions with obvious answers, please ignore them and I will catch up (eventually).
Some recurrent points:
1) Since the extension document is clearly linked to CRM core, I think that a lot of the narrative and explanation of the document conventions can be removed. One would be expected to have to refer to the main document and really work with both side-by-side. At the moment apart from the document becoming too long, we also run the risk of versions of text going out of sync.
2) There are repeated classes in various extensions and some which are almost the same but not quite. For newcomers (and I include myself) this is confusing. When I map to CRM core and CRMsci on 3M, I am offered two classes which appear identical and sometimes they are, in which case which one do I choose? Sorry, this is not a proposal.
posted by Athina on 11/1/2018
Please find attached a version of CRMsci with my HW
posted by Athina on 12/1/2018
In the attached version, I deleted the red marked text, I added Thanasis proposals (with grey highlighted text) and mine proposals (with pink highlighted text) and also I made additions afterwards.
In the 40th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 33nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed part of the comments and the examples about the classes of CRMsci provided by Thanasis and Athina.The outcome is
S1 Matter Removal: crm accepted the editorial changes in the example
S2 Sample Taking: Examples of S2 provided by Thanasis are accepted. Thanasis should provide bibiographic references
S3 Measurement by Sampling: changes made to scope note. HW assigned to TV to add identifying information for the particular measurement in gas chromotography example. MD should revise the phrase in yellow.
S4 Observation: the review of the definition of this class has been postponed.
S5 Inference Making: The sig reviewed and accepted the examples. Thanasis should provide reference for cupid example. The examination of the relation this class with I5 Iference Making of crm-sig has been postponed until reconsideration of S4 Observation.
S6 Data Evaluation: The examples accepted but reference needed for Ancient Messini example. This is assigned to TV. Also it is assigned to TV and MD, to take examples from laser department of FORTH
NEW ISSUE: The crm-sig discussed about the TV's comment that we need a property to link S6 with the data with which we make the calculation, decided to open new issue to formulate the belief conditions for the input data of the data evaluation process. Need to add a link of input data AND this has to be connceted to CRMdig.
S7 Simulation or Prediction: The examples are accepted and asked TV to add reference for st Catherine example. Also the crm-sig argued that we should add an example of a what if simulation, inputs and outputs are fictitious but comparable to reality. It would be a good idea to add agent based model in CH, Or example from Sahara. It is assigned OE and/or SS.
S8 Categorical Hypothesis Building: The fictitious example is deleted, the example Hypothessizing is accepted. TV should add reference to it.
S9 Property Type: It is postponed, it should be considered together with the issue related to redoing S4
S10 Material Substantial: the examples are accepted.
S11 Amount of Matter: The sig considered the comment made by TV, that this class does not have any properties and it is difficult to see the difference with S10 from the scope note, explained that such an amount of matter, in order to be identifiable individual, requires a sort of confinement that supplies a constraint on the constellation of matter and its stability of form which, in practical terms, could be a bottle. In addition, the sig took the decision to add a phrase to encapsulate the above explanation in the S11 scope note. This HW is assigned to MD. The examples are accepted.
S12 Amount of Fluid: The current example is accepted, but the sig asked MD to add Armstrong example.
S13 Sample:The examples are accepted. TV should give a reference for the second example.
S14 Fluid Body: The sig rejected the fictitious example. Added the river. In addition, we should add a reference to the geological definition on which this class is modelled.
S15 Observable Entity: It is postponed because the whole entity is under review.
S17 Physical Genesis: sig accepted the examples. TV should give reference to his sampling example. (Athina should check the comments)
S18 Alteration: The examples are accepted. TV should add ref for example 2
S19 Encounter Event: Decision: accepted by for adding references and the name of the trawler (Athina should check the comments)
S20 Rigid Physical Feature: sig accepted the examples but asked Athina to improve the syntax of 4th example.
S21 Measurement: The Generic example is rejected and it is decided that we need real examples from laser department at FORTH
S22 Segment of Matter: the sig reviewd the scope note and decised to ask SS and MD to elaborate it further up to the next meeting. The example is rejected. We need an example of a ‘baulk’ from an archaeological record
The draft text of the discussion is here
Cologne, January 2018
Posted by Martin on 30/3/2018
Posted by Martijn van Leusen on 9/4/2018
Posted by Martin on 10/4/2018
Posted by martin on 10/4/2018
By the way, an interesting aspect of samples is that they can be split without loosing their identity. Obviously, there is
some complexity in the object-ness of the sample versus its substance. Tracing split samples is a practical issue in labs.
Posted by Martin on 10/4/2018
This is a much debated question. I follow the theory of David Wiggins (Sameness and Substance Renewed (Cambridge, 2001)), which appears to me to be consistent. There is no natural identity to something material. We need to specify under which category we consider some matter. The category must provide identity criteria beforehand. The same matter may participate in different "things" of different identity. The identity conditions of a category must serve a purpose.
The purpose is identified by a question.
So, question: "Is this an original Varsari? " could be defined in terms of the actual matter Varsari had in his hands and the way he gave it artistic shape, regardless later modifications. We could define the end of existence when major parts of the paint layer are lost, or when the last major part is lost, or latest, when the whole paint layer is lost.
This category of "original painting" would "answer": "still the same".
Another definition may be based on phases and degrees of replaced matter. But they easily run into problems with
environmentally caused degradation and natural decay of material, which is a continuous process. So, change of a
physical object is inevitable and continuous. It is much more prominent in living beings.
I would associate conservation states rather with secondary features of objects and not with their overall identity.
Again we need a definition of relevant traits separating one from the other.
I agree that physical objects can change form. This is why we talk about "relative stability". The specific type should determine which deviation of form is "unnatural","renders the object unusable", "destroyed" or whatever may determine its practical end of existence and transition into something else or disappearance.
Posted by Franco on 10/4/2018
I agree with Martin that the current scope note is formally correct: "no stability of form required", means that form may need to remain stable or it is not relevant for the experiment.
Posted by Franco on 10/4/2018
Posted by Martijn van Leusen on 10/4/2018
I stand corrected!
Posted by Thanasis Velios on 11/4/2018
Posted by Christian Emil on 11/4/2018
Posted by Franco on 11/4/2018
Posted by Christian - Emil on 11/4/2018
Posted by Martin 21/4/2018
Posted by Thanasis on 2/4/2018
Please find attached the current draft of CRMsci following changes by Athina and myself. We have stopped working on this now, so feel free to make further changes and circulate new versions. So far, we have made changes in a sequence to avoid producing multiple simultaneous versions.
Posted by Martin 11/5/2018
Here my rework.
Old scope note:
S22 Segment of Matter
Subclass of: S20 Physical Feature
Scope Note: This class comprises physical features in a relative stability of form within a specific spacetime volume. The spatial extent of an instance of S22 Segment of Matter is defined by humans usually because the geometric arrangement of physical features or parts of them on or within it are of interest. An instance of S22 Segment of Matter exists as long as there is no modification of the geometric arrangement of its parts. Therefore the temporal boundaries of the defining spacetime volume are given by two S18 Alteration events. It comes into existence as being an object of discourse through an instance of S4 Observation or declaration and is restricted to the time span starting after the last change caused by an instance of S18 Alteration before the observation or declaration and ending with an instance of another S18 Alteration Event.
The history of a S22 Segment of Matter started with a S17 Physical Genesis event that deposited still existing matter within the defined spatial extent. The collection of all S18 Alteration events represent its history. Some of the events will not leave any physical material within the S22 Segment of Matter.
In other words, this is a fiat object (B. Smith sense) that has declarative boundaries in 3 dimensions but natural boundaries in time (the 4th dimension).
NEW SCOPE NOTE:
S22 Segment of Matter
Subclass of: S20 Physical Feature
Scope Note: This class comprises physical features with relative stability of form and structure within a declared spatial volume of interest. The spatial extend of an instance of S22 Segment of Matter may be declared defined by a researcher or observer usually because the arrangement and composition of substance is characteristic for the surrounding matter or can be interpreted as traces of its genesis and subsequent internal and external processes it was exposed to. The defining spatial extend is typically declared on a continuous matter by means of geometric determination without observable boundaries on all sides or any side. It may however be extracted at some point in time along the declared boundaries.
An instance of S22 Segment of Matter is regarded to be existing from the time on it completely consolidated in a solid form and structure that still preserved in a recognizable way at the time of spatial definition. Its existence is regarded to end when its respective integrity is partially or completely corrupted. Uncorrupted subsections of an instance of S22 Segment of Matter may continue to exist as segments of matter in their own right beyond the existence of the containing instance, and may have consolidated before it.
Typical examples are segments of archaeological or geological layers. They are regarded as uncorrupted even if they have undergone conformal deformations, such as compressions or shifts, as long as the effects of these deformations do not destroy the relevant structures of interest. This means that the defining spatial volume may be only geometrically valid for an instant of time for which it was declared, and undergo before and after deformations. In some cases it may be possible to calculate the initial volume at consolidation time, for instance for petrified bones compressed in Jurassic layers.
Posted by Martin on 12/5/2018
Here my rephrasing.
S3 Measurement by Sampling
Subclass of: S2 Sample Taking
Scope note: This class comprises activities of taking a sample and measuring or analyzing it as one unit of activity, in which the sample is typically not identified and preserved beyond the context of this activity. Instances of this class are constrained to describe the taking of exactly one sample and the dimensions observed by the respective measurement are implicitly understood to describe this particular sample as representative of the place on the instance of S10 Material Substantial from which the sample was taken. Therefore the class S3 Measurement by Sampling inherits the properties of S2 Sample Taking. O3 sampled from: S10 Material Substantial and O4 sampled at: E53 Place, and the properties of S21(E16) Measurement. P40 observed dimension: E54 Dimension, due to multiple inheritance. It needs not instantiate the properties O5 removed: S13 Sample and O24 measured: S15 Observable Entity, if the sample is not documented beyond the context of the activity.
S3 Measurement by Sampling
Subclass of: S2 Sample Taking
Scope note: This class comprises activities of taking a sample and measuring or analyzing it as one unit of activity, in which the sample is typically not identified and preserved beyond the context of this activity. Instances of this class describe the taking of one or more samples regardless whether they are explicitly identified in documentation or preserved beyond this activity. The dimensions observed by the respective measurement of this particular sample are regarded a dimensions of the instance of S10 Material Substantial at the place from which the samples were taken. Therefore the class S3 Measurement by Sampling inherits the properties of S2 Sample Taking. O3 sampled from: S10 Material Substantial and O4 sampled at: E53 Place, and the properties of S21(E16) Measurement. P40 observed dimension: E54 Dimension, due to multiple inheritance. It needs not instantiate the properties O5 removed: S13 Sample and O24 measured: S15 Observable Entity, if the sample is not documented beyond the context of the activity.
S2 Sample Taking should be regarded as subclass of Beginning of Existence, and O5 removed a subproperty of brought into existence.
Current Scope Note of O4:
O4 sampled at (was sampling location of)
Domain: S2 Sample Taking
Range: E53 Place
Quantification: many to many (1,n:0,n)
If more than one place is given they should contain each other.
Scope note: This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with the instance of E53 Place at which this activity sampled. It identifies the position on the material substantial from which the sample was taken. This may be known or given in absolute terms or relative to an instance of the material substantial from which it was taken. It describes the position within the area in which the sampling activity occurred; this latter comprises the space within which operators and instruments were contained during the activity.
New Scope Note
Domain: S2 Sample Taking
Range: E53 Place
Quantification: many to many (1,n:0,n)
Scope note: This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with instances of E53 Place ("spots") at which this activity sampled. It identifies the position on the material substantial from which the sample was taken. This may be known or given in absolute terms or relative to an instance of the material substantial from which it was taken. If one or more samples are taken from more than one spot, their properties must be regarded as average of the substantial at those spots or the samples are regarded as equivalent. Otherwise, the sample taking activity must documented by a separate instance for each spot.
The property P7 took place at, inherited from E4 Period, describes the position within the area in which the sampling activity occurred; this latter comprises the space within which operators and instruments were contained during the activity, and the sample taking spots.
In the 41st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 34th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed and made changes to the following:
S11: made minor changes and accepted. It is assigned to Martin to check compatibility with DOLCE.
S22: made minor changes and accepted.
S2 Sample Taking is be regarded as subclass of E63 Beginning of Existence, and O5 removed is subproperty of P92 brought into existence
S13 Sample: HW assigned to TV about considering when/how the identity of split samples inherit/preserve the identity conditions from the original sample. Articulate chain of logical properties for associating sub-sampling to original object.
O4 sampled at (was sampling location of): made the appropriate changes and accepted the scope note.
The minutes and the revised scope notes are here
Lyon, May 2018
Posted by Martin on 8/11/2018
S11 is compatible with DOLCE: (https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/DLP3941_daml.html)
"The common trait of amounts of matter is that they are endurants with no unity (according to Gangemi et a. 2001 none of them is an essential whole). Amounts of matter - 'stuffs' referred to by mass nouns like 'gold', 'iron', 'wood', 'sand', 'meat', etc. - are mereologically invariant, in the sense that they change their identity when they change some parts. The common trait of amounts of matter is that they are endurants with no unity (according to Gangemi et a. 2001 none of them is an essential whole). Amounts of matter - 'stuffs' referred to by mass nouns like 'gold', 'iron', 'wood', 'sand', 'meat', etc. - are mereologically invariant, in the sense that they change their identity when they change some parts."
This class comprises fixed amounts of matter specified as some air, some water, some soil, etc., defined by the total and integrity of their material content. In order to be able to identify and recognize in practice one instance of S11 Amount of Matter, some sort of confinement is needed that serves as a constraint for the enclosed matter and the integrity of the content, such as a bottle. In contrast to instances of E18 Physical Thing, no stability of form is required. The content may be put into another bottle without loosing its identity. Subclasses may define very different identity conditions for the integrity of the content, such as chemical composition, or the sequence of layers of a bore core. Whereas an instance of E18 Physical Thing may gradually change form and chemical composition while preserving its identity, such as living beings, an instance of S11 Amount of Matter may lose its identifying features by such processes. What matters for the identity of an instance of S1 Amount of Matter is the preservation of a relevant composition from the initial state of definition onwards.
CRM is much more subtle...
Posted by Thanasis on 12/11/2018
I spoke to a couple of colleagues and spent a bit of time on the issue of identity for split samples. In practice (at least in conservation) it seems that a sub-sample is normally given a new identifier.
Typically different characteristics are measured on the sub-sample. Measuring the same characteristics means we are talking about different samples to be compared. There is no explicit statement on whether samples are sharing
characteristics in the data but this is often captured in publications. I think we have two cases:
a) Sub-samples which come from heterogenous/unstable samples (relative to scale) therefore characteristics are not shared.
b) Sub-samples which come from homogenous/stable samples (again relative to scale) therefore characteristics are shared.
A sub-sample can be modelled as a new sample taken from the original sample with an S2 Sampling event which results in different S11 Amount
of Matter. Provenance can be tracked through the sampling events. The sampling action alone does not guarantee that samples share
characteristics and therefore I think that we cannot guarantee that the identity condition remains after splitting the sample. A sub-sample is
always different to the original sample. If we want to state that the two samples share characteristics, then perhaps a new sub-property of
O25 is needed:
S13 Sample : Oxx shares characteristics with : S13 Sample
I hope I have not retracted from the thinking during the last CRM-SIG.
In the 43rd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 36th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed the proposal put forth by TV (to introduce a property Oxx shares characteristics with [D: S13 Sample, R: S13 Sample]; subproperty of O25 contains [D: S13 Sample, R: S13 Sample]) and decided against it.
DECISION: the sig opted for a subproperty of O3 sampled from [D: S2 Sample Taking, R: S13 Sample], defined over the same domain and range as O3. Its label should be Oxx split from
HW: TV is to provide the definition of the new property Oxx split from.
Heraklion, March 2019
Posted by Athina on 2/4/2019
I found this reference http://joey711.github.io/phyloseq/ and this https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 about a tool named phyloseq. It is described as a set of classes, wrappers, and tools (in R) to make it easier to import, store, and analyze phylogenetic sequencing data; and to reproducibly share that data and analysis with others.
This might help to understand better or find more cases about processes we describe in CRM sci.
For instance, there is a specific description https://rdrr.io/bioc/phyloseq/man/merge_samples-methods.html about merging samples, so I am not sure if there is also a need for an extra link "merged" sample in CRM sci, such the one that Thanasis proposed (split) in the recent sig meeting. Probably we need more data from the biologists domain, in order to confirm that.
So regard this as an information I wanted to share, relating to S2 Sample Taking
Posted by Thanasis on 2/6/2019
I am sending you a proposal for a scope note for the new sub-property of
O5 (and not O3, I think, as mentioned in 332) to be discussed in Paris.
Oxx split (was split by)
Domain: S2 Sample Taking
Range: S13 Sample
Subproperty of: S2 Sample taking: O5 removed (was removed by): S13 Sample
Scope note:This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking
with an instance of S13 Sample that was removed during this activity.
The resulting S13 Sample maintains the characteristic qualities of the
the instance of S10 Material Substantial that the sample was taken from.
This property should be used to model cases when a homogenous sample is
split into multiple ones.
In the 44th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 37th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting,the sig reviewed the HW by TV regarding the new property to be introduced in CRMsci, namely Oxx split from [D:S2 Sample Taking, R:S13 Sample]. The scope note for the property was accepted.
HW: The sig appointed TV and RS to provide examples.
Paris, June 2019
Posted by Robert Sanderson on 13/6/2019
An example from the biomedical domain for Oxx split from:
· The Sample Taking (S2) of 10 percent of the blood from a vial _split_ (Oxx) the resulting Sample (S13) _from_ the original, as the new Sample is still representative of the original Sample’s properties. Conversely, a Sample Taking (S2) of all the white blood cells from the same blood would _remove_ (O5) the resulting Sample, as the original Sample is no longer representative of its previous properties.
And noted from discussion, that the Sample Taking is also a Transformation of the Sample, as it is no longer a Sample and it is reinstantiated as an Amount of Matter (or other class). This is due to the scope note of S13, that it ceases to exist when its representative qualities become corrupted.
Posted by Thanasis Velios on 17/10/2019
This is to provide an example from conservation of the use of CRMsci property Oxx split [D:S2 Sample Taking, R:S13 Sample]:
The activity (S2 Sample Taking) of removing fibers from the sample (S13 Sample) of Japanese Kozo hand-made paper [with dimensions 20cm×3cm], which was originally taken from the inside structure of a Japanese sliding screen and used for non-destructive spectral imaging, produced (Oxx split) the new sample of fibers (S13 Sample) [with sub-milimeter dimensions], used for destructive fiber identification.
In the 45th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 38th FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed
(a) the scope note for Oxx split from [D: S2 Sample Taking, R: S13 Sample] (HW by TV) and accepted it as a working definition –post editing. HW was assigned to TV to edit the scope note, make sure to edit the underlined sentence, in a way that it is comprehensible and that it also conveys the meaning that splitting the sample allows one to reason that the subsample retains all the properties of the original sample.
(b) the example proposed: sig acknowledged that while the example proposed does not conform to the rules about giving examples, sometimes there is need to provide more information so that the readers can tell why the example is relevant (and in this particular case, it is considered necessary). The sig decided that the example needs rewriting, HW was assigned to TV to come up with a nice example –evoking a stereotypical one, that has already been published and is readily available –to which he is to add a date and actor (make these up if they are not explicitly mentioned, make sure they sound plausible though). The example and the discussion about it can be found here
Furthermore a proposal was made to start a new issue on how to write examples. Everyone in agreement.
Heraklion, October 2019
Posted by Thanasis on 6/2/2020
In the last meeting I was asked to revise the scope note for O27 split and provide a more specific example for it. Please consider these:
Old scope note
This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with an instance of S13 Sample that was removed during this activity. The resulting S13 Sample maintains the characteristic qualities of the the instance of S10 Material Substantial that the sample was taken from. This property should be used to model cases when a homogenous sample is split into multiple ones.
Revised scope note
This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with an instance of S13 Sample that was removed during this activity. The resulting S13 Sample maintains the characteristic qualities of the instance of S10 Material Substantial (i.e. the original sample) that the new sample was taken from. This supports reasoning that the new sample retains/preserves the characteristic qualities of the original sample. Any observations of these qualities made on the new sample also apply to the original one. This property should be used to model cases when a homogenous sample is split into multiple ones.
New example (with recommended introduction):
In 2000, Godfrey et al.  took a sample from a section of the tusk fragment GT993 which was originally found in the ship-wreck of Vergulde Draeck in Western Australia. This sample was homogenous (ground to fine powder). Part of the sample was then removed for elemental analysis using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). Another part was removed for carbon/nitrogen analysis using a LECO analyser.
The activity (S2) of removing a part from the sample (S13), which was originally taken from the tusk fragment GT993 by Godfrey et al. in 2000, *split* the sample to create a new one (S13) for ICP-AES analysis in order to reveal the composition of the original sample.
 I.M. Godfrey, E.L. Ghisalberti, E.W. Beng, L.T. Byrne & G.W. Richardson (2002) The Analysis of Ivory from a Marine Environment, Studies in Conservation, 47:1, 29-45, DOI: 10.1179/sic.2002.47.1.29
In the 48th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 41st FRBR-CIDOC CRM Harmonization Meeting; the sig asked TV TV to edit the scope note of O27 split as discussed (change the domain), provide scope note for Sxx Sample Splitting (?), and update the example accordingly. Allso sig asked MD to provide an example for the subsampling of Armstrong’s urine.
Posted by Thanasis on 22/02/2021
During the last SIG I was asked to reformulate some homework around splitting samples for CRMsci. This included creating a new class and two new properties (one of them from the revised homework). Please find this new homework attached here (.odt) (.docx).
Posted by Robert on 22/02/2021
In case this is discussed at the upcoming SIG meeting when I'm not present, here is my mail in vote of +1
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 6:45 AM Athanasios Velios <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
During the last SIG I was asked to reformulate some homework around
splitting samples for CRMsci. This included creating a new class and two
new properties (one of them from the revised homework). Please find this
new homework attached here.
In the 50th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 43nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, The SIG reviewed HW by TV.
- redrafting the scope-note and examples for S24 Sample Splitting
- redrafting the scope note for S27 split (was source for)
- defining the new property O29 removed sub-sample (was removed by).
Decision: HW accepted. Details here.
In the 53rd CIDOC CRM & 46th FRBRoo SIG meeting, the SIG decided to close the issue on the grounds of there being nothing left to do