In the 46th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 39th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig resolving the issue 438, found that the properties P8, P12, P110, P111, P112, P113 may have an added spatiotemporal formalization about the presence of parts. This issue is created for describing the discussion about these new formalizations.
Athens, February 2020
In the 53rd CIDOC CRM & 46th FRBRoo SIG meeting, MD gave some background for the issue: The theory of mereology developed by the team of N.Guarino, according to which the physical extent of the whole includes the physical extent of its parts, informed the construct of E93 Presence.
Decision: go through the properties identified as having an added spatiotemporal formalization (P8, P12, P110, P111, P112, P113) and formulate axioms of parthood in FOL.
HW: WS, (MD)
May 2022
Post by Wolfgang Schmidle (7 December 2022)
Dear all,
Please find my HW for Issue 492 "Spatiotemporal formalization about the presence of parts“ here.
Best,
Wolfgang
In the 55th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 48th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting, the SIG appointed WS to continue working on the issue, taking into account the feedback provided.
For the details of the HW and the discussion, see attached.
Belval, December 2022
In the 57th CIDOC CRM & 50th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, WS presented HW. For the details of the proposal and the points that came up for discussion, see here.
Decisions:
- The change of the formalism is a different issue. It can be discussed among MD, CEO, and WS as a separate issue.
- HW: CEO and MD to revise the document, summarize it for the broader audiences. Maybe color code it as well.
Marseille, October 2023
Post by Martin Doerr (25 March 2026) --repeats information in issue 720
An example raising a lot of important cultural-historical comments and implications over centuries would be the Capilla Mayor forms part of the Mezquita of Cordoba, Spain (since 1523).
Could also be an interesting example of a (much contested) Part Addition destroying a former part.
Kind regards,
Martin
Post by Franco Niccolucci (26 March 2026) --repeats information in issue 720
I am a bit uncomfortable with P46. According to the scope note, “being part of” refers to being a physical part of something. But see the two examples below.
- The Florence Baptistery (see e.g. en.wikipedia for details and references, scrolling down to the ”Bronze doors” section for the details )
The Baptistery has three monumental doors, masterpieces of Gothic and Renaissance art. One of them is called “Gates of Paradise” for its beauty. These doors were badly damaged by the 1966 flood, were then restored and now are placed in the Cathedral Museum. Copies have been put on the monument.
According to the scope note of P46, at present the originals do not form part of the monument. How can we document the concept that they are indeed “part” of it?
- Dismembered polyptychs
Many polyptychs from Italian and other European churches have been broken into parts which at present are placed in different museums. See e.g. UNESCO, “An Illustrated inventory of famous dismembered works of art: European painting, with a section on dismembered tombs in France”, 1974, available online from the UNESCO digital library:
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000007900
How can we document the former unity of an artwork? Not with P46 as the parts are at present separate. So, is there a solution to state that Giotto’s painting “The Virgin and Four Saints” (described on page 29 of the above), originally located as a whole in the church of Santa Croce, Florence, and now divided into three parts placed respectively at the National Gallery, at the Horne Museum and at Jacquemart-André Museum, physically were part of and conceptually still are part of the same artwork?
Physical proximity does not always imply being part of the same thing; and from the heritage perspective both concepts, past physical contiguity and present conceptual contiguity, are both important: past contiguity (= being part of the same thing) without conceptual contiguity (= being intentionally placed in the same place/contributing to form a global object) is just a matter of storage with little heritage relevance, if any.
Can anybody help?
Franco
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (26 March 2026) --repeats information in issue 720
It is a general issue in CRM that that the temporal aspect is not expressed for properties like P46 and others. On the other hand it is expressed for location and ownership
P49 has former or current keeper (is former or current keeper of)
P51 has former or current owner (is former or current owner of)
P53 has former or current location (is former or current location of)
Maybe a similar formulation should be used for P46 and corresponding properties or at least explained?
Post by Martin Doerr (26 March 2026) --repeats information in issue 720
Dear All,
The question of temporal aspects have been discussed for years, and there are severe reasons not to add temporal validity to all properties.
The "current" properties are particularly bad, because they require controlled updating.
Before we repeat here in e-mail all the discussion and propose long discarded solutions again, Eleni might be able to recover the respective exchanges and we turn that into a didactic document. May be we need an AI index into the e-mails.
This would be a nice issue!
See also: Bekiari, Ch., & Doerr, M. (1999). Documentation and reasoning on parts and potential wholes. Dublin, Ireland, 14-18 April.
Best,
Martin