Issue 584: AP32 discarded into -scope note refinement (formerly called AP29 by mistake)

ID: 
584
Starting Date: 
2022-03-16
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

In the 52nd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 45th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; upon discussing issue 478, the SIG resolved to start a new issue, where to discuss the new property AP29 discarded into and its quantification. The scope note will be extended by a clause that explains why the quantification has been set to many-to-many. 

HW: AF, GH, CEO

February 2022

Current Proposal: 

Post by Christian-Emil (9th May 2022)

Dear all,

This issue is about the quantification of the new property (accepted in the 52nd meeting). First of all, we forgot about the three new properties AP 29-31. So the number of  AP29 must be changed to AP32.

Achille, Gerald and I have discussed the quantification and came to the following conclusion

The first part of the quantification of AP29(32) (0, n) is fine since it seems obvious to us that the same instance of A1 Excavation Processing Unit may discard matter into multiple heaps, unless there is a clearly establishing criterion of close correspondence between each A1 and the heap in which the material extracted from it is discarded. We don't think this criterion can always be followed,  so we would keep the quantification as broad as possible to enclose all the possible cases that could occur during an excavation.

We equally believe that the material produced during an A1 Excavation Processing Unit can be discarded into any heap, but also  simply thrown away without any order or exported to be deposited elsewhere, thereby breaking any close correspondence between the excavation and the deposit.

In conclusion, our opinion  that the "(0,n:0,n) many to many" is the right quantification. We also think that quantification, once decided, does not have to be motivated in the scope notes. Such a motivation is not found in the scopenotes for the other six properties with A1 Excavation Processing Unit, see below. If a motivation of the quantification is deemed necessary for AP29(32) then it is necessary for the other six properties as well. the others as well. All of these have the quantification (0,n:0,n) many to many.

These properties are:

AP1 produced (was produced by): S11 Amount of Matter


AP2 discarded (was discarded by): S11 Amount of Matter


AP4 produced surface (was surface produced by): A10 Excavation Interface


AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by): A8 Stratigraphic Unit


AP6 intended to approximate (was approximated by): A3 Stratigraphic Interface


AP10 destroyed (was destroyed by): S22 Segment of Matter

Best,

Chriistian-Emil

In the 53rd CIDOC CRM & 46th FRBRoo SIG meeting, CEO walked the Sig through the current state of the issue:

  • AP29 discarded into: that identifier is already taken –next available number is AP32.
  • considerations re. its quantification that is set to “many-to-many”. The reasoning is as follows:
    • FIRST PART: the same instance of A1 Excavation Processing Unit may discard matter into multiple heaps, unless there is a clearly establishing criterion of close correspondence between each A1 and the heap in which the material extracted from it is discarded. However, this criterion isn’t always followed, therefore we opt for the broader case.
    •  SECOND PART: the material produced during an A1 Excavation Processing Unit can be discarded into any heap, but also  simply thrown away without any order or exported to be deposited elsewhere, thereby breaking any close correspondence between the excavation and the deposit.
  • Wrt. the necessity of adding a clause in the scope note to explain the quantification: is it necessary only for this case or should there be similar explanations for all property quantifications?

Decision:

  • change the numeric ID of the property to AP32 discarded into (was discarded by)
  • no objections to the quantification of the property
  • draft a statement for this particular instance –whether explanations are offered for something in a scope note is solely dependent it being self-explanatory or not.
    HW: CEO, AF, GH to update the scope note based on the text expressing the reasoning that supports setting the quantification to “many-to-many”.
  • call an evote for the updated scope note.

 

 

May 2022