Post by Wolfgang Schmidle (22 February 2026)
Dear All,
I propose a new example for P46 as well as E13, P140, P141, P177: the “Antique Walrus Tusk Warrior Chessman” forms part of the Lewis Chessmen. I also propose replacing the “Fosseway” example in P46, and exchanging the domain and range in a CRMinf example.
See here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XKJTDvzErwRSs2XB0NOZucc4tFPzccXos5t…
Best,
Wolfgang
Post by Martin Doerr (22 February 2026)
Dear Wolfgang,
I support this proposal. Could be an e-vote?
Best,
Martin
Post by George Bruseker (22 February 2026)
I also think this is a positive improvement, gives context and is a clear case.
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (22 February 2026)
It is a nice example. But does "Antique Walrus Tusk Warrior Chessman" identify the object? By the way the chessmen were probably made in Trondheim, Norway.
Best,
Christian-Emil
Post by Martin Doerr (22 February 2026)
Dear Christian Emil,
Yes, I agree, I would normally add a few contextual properties in the identifying noun phrase, such as:
" The so-called "Lewis Chessmen" found on the Isle of Lewis in 1831" and the like for the newly found Warrior.
Best,
Martin
Post by Martin Doerr (22 February 2026)
I'd use some facts from this phase:
"The object will go on display in Edinburgh on Tuesday and in London just before the auction on 2 July, with Mr Kader saying it could be bought by, or be loaned to, a museum." and Southeby to contextualze "Antique Walrus Tusk Warrior Chessman" ...
Post by Stephen Stead (25 February 2026)
Nice work
Stephen Stead
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (25 March 2026)
*Concerning the proposal to drop the example "Hog's Back (E24) forms part of the Fosseway (E24)" in P46 is composed of (forms part of)
Hi
I tried to find the combination of the two names. Fosseway is a roman route. Hog's Back is a ridge in England and also the name of a road in England. I cannot find a meaningful combination of the two.
Best,
Christian-Emil
Post by Stephen Stead (25 March 2026)
That is because there is no meaningful combination
Post by Eleni Tsouloucha (25 March 2026)
could we then get rid of it?
It's OK, we'll have a thoroughly checked example for P46 now!!
cheers,
Eleni
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (25 March 2026)
I will say yes.
Chr-Emil
Post by George Bruseker (26 March 2026)
Let it be gone
Post by Erin Canning (25 March 2026)
Hi all,
My hesitation around removing the Hog’s Back example from P46 is that I think it should be replaced with another example that uses E24 as domain and range. Otherwise, P46 will only have examples which use E22, raising the question of why the domain and range is E18 and not E22. The new example is also about E22s.
To that end, I would propose the following:
- The Throne Room, Knossos (E24) forms part of the Palace of Knossos (E24)
The Palace of Knossos is already listed as an example of E24 (Evans, 1921). The same Evans reference could be used for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throne_Room,_Knossos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knossos
Please tell me if I should start this (the proposal of a new example) as a separate issue. I’m open to it not being this example, of course, I just am hoping we can replace instead of just remove!
Best,
Erin
Post by Martin Doerr (25 March 2026)
Hi Erin,
Excellent!
Martin
Post by Franco Niccolucci (25 March 2026)
and here is another one (a bit chauvinist )
- Brunelleschi's Dome (E24) forms part of the Florence Cathedral (E24)
it doesn't need reference as everybody knows it (I suppose), but en.wikipedia can be used if wished:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Cathedral
or to be more specific, from note #43 to the above
King, Ross (2001). Brunelleschi's Dome: The Story of the Great Cathedral of Florence. New York: Penguin. ISBN 0-8027-1366-1.
F.
Post by Martin Doerr (25 March 2026)
Equally perfect!
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)
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.
1) 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?
2) 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)
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)
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