Issue 476: Pxx represents entity of type

ID: 
476
Starting Date: 
2020-02-24
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

Posted by Robert Sanderson on 19/2/2020

Dear all,

(Last new issue for now, I promise)

When describing a Visual Item, we can say that it represents some entity that you can point to (e.g. the sitter), that it is about some subject that you can’t point to (e.g love) and it can have general classifications with has type for style (abstract) or other such features of the overall visual content. However, it would be useful to be able to say that a class of entity is represented in the visual item rather than a specific entity. 

We have tried several approaches to this. If we want to say that a still life painting depicts flowers, we would not want to create a Biological Object and classify it as a flower to be represented by the visual item of the painting … such a flower may never have actually existed, and it would be enormously expensive. Equally we don’t think that the Type “flowers” is represented in the painting … it’s a not a depiction of all flowers, it’s a depiction of some, likely fictional, collection of specific flowers.

So we would propose a new property that parallels P138 represents, but instead refers to a class of entity rather than a specific.

We can see this pattern already in the model:

P16 used specific object    vs   P125 used object of type

P20 had specific purpose     vs    P21 had general purpose

P33 used specific technique    vs   P32 used general technique

P108 has produced    vs    P186 produced thing of product type

 

Pxx represents entity of type

Domain: E36 Visual Item

Range: E55 Type

Sub Property Of P138 Represents

This property establishes the relationship between an E36 Visual Item and an E55 Type that represents the class of entity which it visually represents.  This property is used when the specific entity being represented is either unknown, or not of documentary interest.  The manner or mode of the representation can be captured using Pxx.1 mode of representation.

 

Properties:  Pxx.1 mode of representation: E55 Type

 

Examples:

    The still life painting’s image content (E36) represents and entity of type flowers (E55)
    The sculpture’s visual content (E36) represents an entity of type woman (E55)
    The photograph’s visual content (E36) represents an entity of type beach (E55) in the manner of background (E55) 

 

 

Thoughts?

Posted by Nicola Carboni on 25/2/2020

Dear Rob,

I do agree with the need and the formulation, and it can be extremely useful for iconographical attributes (which are intentionally classified using categories). I did personally used the same construct in an extension of CRM for iconographical representation, so would love to see it in CRM base.

    Sub Property Of P138 Represents

What about making it as subproperty of "P137 exemplifies (is exemplified by)". It does seems to me more appropriate.

    This property establishes the relationship between an E36 Visual Item and an E55 Type that represents the class of entity which it visually represents. This property is used when the specific entity being represented is either unknown, or not of documentary interest. The manner or mode of the representation can be captured using Pxx.1 mode of representation.

I would not use a negative ("not of documentary interest") and say "This property is used when the specific entity being represented is either unknown, or for documenting the belonging of an item to a specific category" or another more positive formulation. In my experience, the choice of the classification of categorical vs instance depends on the discipline and not by a lack of documentary interest.

Another example could be:

    The attribute of the wall painting "Saint George" (E36) represents an entity of type dragon (E55) in the manner of Iconographical Attribute (E55)
 

Current Proposal: 

In the 46th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 39th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meetingThe sig discussed the necessity of introducing such a property and agreed to it. Sig members did not oppose to the introduction of a property used when the specific entity being represented is either unknown, or not of documentary interest. The scope note proposed by RS is to be put up for discussion over the next sig meeting.

Athens, February 2020

 

Posted by Robert Sanderson on 6/3/2020

Hi Nicola,

I disagree with the relationship to P137.  That would mean that the visual item exemplified the type, which it doesn’t, it merely depicts an entity of the type.

For example, if it were a sub-property of P137 and I was looking for exemplars of abstract impressionism, I might find images that are photographic that merely depict an instance of something which is abstract impressionism.

I could also see it being a sibling to P138 rather than a child, and thus a sub-property of P67.

I took the “not of interest” phrase from the parallel P125:

> This property defines the kind of objects used in an E7 Activity, when the specific instance is either unknown or not of interest, such as use of "a hammer".

But I’m also happy with your reformulation.

Posted by Robert on 25/6/2020

Yesterday we agreed that the scope note for Pxx represents entity of type should be clarified to separate it from just P138 directly to an E55 type.

My attempt to do so for discussion in session 3 tomorrow:

Scope Note:

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

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

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

Examples:

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

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

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

In the 47th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 40th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; the sig discussed the proposal to  Introduce a new property (Pxxx represents entity of type) to facilitate documenting the type of an entity represented by a visual item and  decided to postpone reaching a decision until RS has brought back an updated proposal incorporating the changes suggested by the SIG (define it as a shortcut and redraft the examples); which should be before session 2.3. Then, if the SIG agrees it could be given an identifier and be used by the community –it is not to go to the version submitted to ISO. HW for RS. The details of the discussion can be found here.

June 2020

Posted by Robert  Sanderson on 03/03/2021

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

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

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

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

Examples:

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

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

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

In the 49th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 42nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the SIG reviewed RS's HW (scope note and example for Pxxx represents entity of type).

Decision: There was some editing involved and it was agreed that the property will appear in CIDOC CRM v7.2, with a different label (Pxxx represents instance of type). The reworked scope note can be found here.

For the moment there is only one example illustrating the proper use of the property. New examples are to be discussed in a separate issue. The property still needs to be assigned a number (before the issue closes)

Some of the points raised in the discussion

  • We don’t talk about entities in the CRM. It’s instance, item or particular. Here probably *instance*.

  • If Pxx represents entity of type isA P138 represents, then it inherits the .1 property, we don’t need to declare a separate subproperty for that. 

  • typed properties for the CRM. When the extension for typed properties is ready, there will be some replication. We might want to consider moving it to the extension. 

  • Distinguish btw representing an unknown particular and representing a concept. The property should only be used when one wants to document that an instance of E36 Visual Item represents an unknown particular of a given type. More examples are needed to make that crystal clear. The examples should mainly involve photographs. That a photo represents an instance of owl, means that the identity of the particular bird is unknown. But there must have been a photographed object of type owl. 

HW: MD to provide more examples, RS to collaborate. 

 

HW by Martin Doerr (proposed quantification, FOL and minor scope note addition) --24 January 2022

 

Comment by Thanasis (24 January 2022)

Dear all,

The FOL I think is missing the shortcut (which I feel brave enough to try!):

P199(x,y)⇐(∃z)[E1(z)˄P138(x,z)˄P2(z,y)]

Just to flag that this seems to me a typical case of a typed property
(TP198). I am happy with adding this, but I am a bit concerned on where
will we stop with typed properties. I.e. I have lots of examples for
typed P46 statements and typed P45 statement etc. but we do not want all
of these in CRMbase. And I am sure there are tons of similar examples
for the rest of the CRM properties (another one from the St. Catherine's
is TP1 is identified by identifier of type).

Another issue is that, if I am reading the RDFS file correctly, querying
RDF for P198 will not return results of P199 when clearly the chain
passes through it. A reification construct is needed to do that, again
not desirable in CRMbase.

In other words I am worried that this property is an *incomplete
implementation* for RDFS and opens a can of worms. I would suggest that
this is kept in a separate RDFS file which brings me to the TP and NTP
extension: This is developing in parallel to Carlo and I working on TPs
and NTPs which I think are a more complete solution which does not
affect base and I apologise for being slow with it. Carlo is doing a lot
of hand-holding and I am learning as I go.

As always, I am sorry if I have misunderstood critical points.

All the best,

Thanasis
 

In the 53rd CIDOC CRM & 46th FRBRoo SIG meeting, the SIG decided to postpone this issue, on the grounds that it may result in infinitely multiplying the typed properties in the CRM. TV and CM are working to achieve that through a systematic solution (also negative properties). The property may end up being deprecated in the end. 
Nb. There are other typed properties in the CRM that we might need to reconsider after a more general solution has been provided.

May 2022
 

In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, Thanasis Velios proposed to deprecate P199 represents instance of type (admitted into the CIDOC CRM v7.2.x branch), on the grounds that the information it conveys can be expressed through the (N)TPs model

The SIG decided to discuss the proposal in the December 2022 meeting, in order to give Thanasis and Rob ample time to discuss how P199 fits into the (N)TPs model. 

 

Rome, September 2022