Issue 203: Identity of Information Objects and incorporate property of FRBRoo

Starting Date: 
2012-01-13
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Done
Closing Date: 
2014-04-04
Background: 

Posted by Martin Doerr and Giannis Tzitzikas 13/01/2012 

This may find your interest:
We have developed a novel model how to deal with the identity of information objects. The basic idea is, that the substance of an information object lies in features of the sensory impression, the signal, a carrier of an information object is intended to produce. We have shown that this approach allows for exactly identifying the content of some important kinds of information objects, independent if they are represented as digital files or printed on paper,as one would intuitively expect. The surprising consequence of this definition is that depending on the kinds of features under consideration, any information carrier may be regarded to carry more than one information object at the same time.
see http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1201/1201.0385.pdf 

I wonder if the "incorporates" property of FRBRoo should become part of the CRM as a fundamental construct. I must admit that we had not yet the time to check exactly the role of Symbolic Object versus Information Object in this model.

Current Proposal: 

Accepted: New property between E73 Information Objects, scope note to be written (senses of information content, equivalences of transcriptions and images of inscriptions etc 

Heraklion Crete 3/5/2012 


yvind Eide will check if there are some objective criteria. Also this should be combined with issue 205. 
28th CRM-SIG meeting, June 2013, Stockholm 


Issue 205 : Title P65 - P138-P67 guidelines 
Background 
Posted by Martin Doerr 8/02/2012 
I believe we need some additional clarification when to use P65, P138, P129, P67: 

Think of a painting, the visual impression of the paint layer, a digital image of the paint layer, a settlement in the background of the painting, Madonna with Child in the foreground. Which is which and why. We may need to update the scope notes to be more precise. 

Current Proposal see an example in graphical representation : ppt file (350 Kb) 

Martin Doerr and yvind Eide will Check the notion of incorporation if it can cover analogue to digital, FORTH will write an example. 

Heraklion, Crete, 3/5/2012 


Posted by Martin 13/11/2012 

WRT the issue "P65 - P138-P67 guidelines", we were in the last meeting confronted with the question how to represent the relation between an analogue object and its digitization. 

Here my opinion: 

The FRBRoo property "R14 incorporates" appears to assume that the content of the incorporated Expression can be recovered from the incorporating Expression. Applying that to the digitization of a painting, we come to the conclusion that neither one incorporates the other. Rather, the digitized painting is an approximation, normally in the RGB channels, of the original under standardized (if at all) daylight conditions. The quality of the approximation depends on resolution, lighting, color channels and color calibration. So, any digitization has a different relationship to the original. 

The only common relation appears to be the intention to represent as good as possible the original, and details are parameters of the digitization process. As such "Image X. is digitization of: Painting Y" can be seen as a kind of "P138 represents". If we take the true reflectance properties of the analogue original as an instance of E36 Visual Item, the digitized image can also be regarded as a derivative, i.e., the "is digitization of" as a kind of " R2 is derivative of (has derivative)". 

In case of "discrete information objects" as we describe in: http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0385, a digitized image of adequate resolution, such as of a newspaper page, indeed "incorporates" the original analogue representation of the Information Object, as its intended features are completely recognizable on the digital image. 

Hence, the decision, if a digital image incorporates an analogue resource depends on the adequacy of the process and the type of the original, and therefore is additional knowledge that cannot be inferred from the fact of being product of a digitization process only. However, being product of a digitization process appears to always allow for inferring that the digital represents and is derivative of the original. 

Similarly, the degree to which we can objectively decide if a digital image can stand for being a visual item shown by a physical man-made thing : "P65 shows visual item", depends on the same arguments as the "incorporates" property: In case the digital "incorporates" the analogue, the digital can be inferred to be a visual item shown by (P65B) a physical thing, for instance an inscription text. 

CRM-SIG however may decide for practical reasons that the use of the property P65 extends to regard any digitization product as being a visual item P65B shown by .. In that case, the scope note of P65 could be extended like that: 

"This property documents an E36 Visual Item shown by an instance of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing or an adequate visual approximation of it." 


Posted by yvind Eide 5/6/2013 

This is a few notes on the analogue to digital part of the issue, that is: digitisation. 

My basic take on digitisation is that it is similar copy. It also has the same ambiguity. For instance, "copy" as it is used in the P130 example is, I assume, a copy made by manual human work (chiseling?) 

It is clear that "the digitized painting is an approximation" (issue 205 notes). When it is stated that "any digitization has a different relationship to the original. The only common relation appears to be the intention to represent as good as possible the original" (issue 205 notes), that intention is covered by the word "copy". 

"Incorporates" is excluded, as the issue 205 notes states. "Represents", "is derivate" and "copy" all cover the process of digitisation quite well. 

Digitisation must be separated from retro-conversion. Retro-conversion (transcription or OCR of texts) creates a symbolic expression based on an interpretation of the original symbolic expression. The signs will often travel through an intellect, otherwise it goes through an algorithm of pattern recognition. Doerr et.al.[1] has shown that the latter can be perfect (given certain conditions). 

Digitisation is always imperfect. It is to create a digital image, a spatial item, based on a view (a painting, a statue, etc., seen from a certain perspective) through equipment such as a camera or a moving CCD system (scanner). It is causal in the sense that it is based on waves/particles, where light emitted/reflected from the original is captured by a light sensitive piece of equipment. This light does not travel through an intellect, even if an intellect in engaged in setting up the digitisation equipment, run the process, etc. 

Digitisation is different from a reproduction not in how similar the image is to the original, but in the process behind its making. In the case of a reproduction information travels through an intellect. 

So, which of the CRM properties best express the causal relationship between original and digitised version? 

Suggestion: 

P138 represents (has representation) 

gets and additional paragraph stating: 

"This property is also used for the relationship between an original and a digitisation of the original. Digitisation is here seen as a process with a mechanical, causal component and do not depend on any visual similarity identifiable by observation." 

It should also have one or preferably two examples: one straight forward scanning and one strange example, multispectral scanning or something. An archaeologist of the right sort can come up with something, I assume. 

Should we also make a note of photocopy? 

[1] Doerr, Martin, and Yannis Tzitzikas. "Information Carriers and Identification of Information Objects: An Ontological Approach." (2012). URL: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1201/1201.0385.pdf 
Outcome 
yvind Eide will check if there are some objective criteria. 
Also this should be combined with issue 203. 

28th CRM-SIG, June 2013, Stockholm 


ISSUE 227 is "incorporates" complete inclusion 
Background Posted by Martin 21/05/2013 
Dear All, 

If we use the property "incorporates" for the content transferred from a text to a performance, or from a performance to a recording, or from a painting to the digitized form, the question arises if "incorporates" means complete inclusion. If yes, another intermediate object is needed to specify the insection of content in the incorporating and incorporated, in order to express such partial incorporation.Otherwise, we could relax the meaning of incorporates, and create a subproperty "complete incorporates". 

Opinions? 


Posted by Patrick 22/05/2013 

Dear Martin, and dear all, 

I agree with the second proposal, i.e., to regard "incorporates" as meaning actually "incorporates bits of", and create a subproperty for those cases where it is known or assumed (or even deceptively stated on the information resource at hand) that the incorporation is complete. 
I also think that "incorporates" should be declared in CIDOC CRM rather than just in FRBRoo; it would then be possible to state that an information object (and therefore an expression) incorporates e.g. an image, without having to bother whether an image is a work or an expression. FRBRer is frequently criticized for its rigidity, and I admit that the work/expression distinction may not be relevant for some types of artistic creations, e.g. drawings and paintings, which are better modelled in CIDOC CRM. Since FRBRoo is an extension of CIDOC CRM, it should be possible to bypass the rigidity of FRBR and handle some products of the mind without having to apply to them the irrelevant work/expression categorization. 
Best wishes, 
Patrick 


Posted by Maja Zummer 22/05/2013 

Hi! 

I agree that we should also support partial integration. But looking at Martin's examples: is 'incorporation' of the text into a performance really similar in nature to making a digital reproduction of a painting? And what abot this example: I recently wrote a poem which included several lines previously written by my friend on a piece of pottery...? I would interpret this as 'incorporation', too. 
 


Posted by Martin 24/05/2013 
Dear All, 

Patrick and I propose to introduce "incorporates" to the CRM, with the relaxed semantics described below. 

Current Proposal 
The CRM-SIG decided to merge this issue with 203 until to find semantics for "incorporates" in CRM to answer completeness question. 
28th CRM-SIG Stockholm 7/6/2013 


Posted by yvind Eide on 13/10/2013 
Dear all, 

Issue 205 was discussed last in Stockholm, where I suggested to clarify the modelling of digitisation by adding a new paragraph to the scope note for P138. Thus, the proposal is to extend the scope note to the following: 

"This property establishes the relationship between an E36 Visual Item and the entity that it visually represents. 

Any entity may be represented visually. This property is part of the fully developed path from E24 Physical Man-Made Thing through P65 shows visual item (is shown by), E36 Visual Item, P138 represents (has representation) to E1 CRM Entity, which is shortcut by P62depicts (is depicted by). P138.1 mode of representation allows the nature of the representation to be refined. 

This property is also used for the relationship between an original and a digitisation of the original by the use of techniques such as digital photography, flatbed scanning and infrared scanning. Digitisation is here seen as a process with a mechanical, causal component and does not necessarily include any visual similarity identifiably by human observation." 

Further, it was suggested to add two more examples. Thus, the new example text will be: 

"Examples: 

* the design on the reverse of a Swiss coin (E36) represents Helvetia (E28) mode of representation Profile (E55) 

* the digital file found at http://www.emunch.no/N/full/No-MM_N0001-01.jpg (E73) represents page 1 of Edvard Munch's manuscript MM N 1, Munch-museet (E73) mode of representation Digitisation (E55) 


*the left image of figure 5 on page 1452 of the article found at
 
http://www.eurasip.org/Proceedings/Eusipco/Eusipco2011/papers/1569432319.pdf  (E73) represents a fragment of The Waldseemuller 1507 World  Map (E73) mode of representation Beta Radiograph Imaging (E55)" 


Posted by yvind Eide on 18/10/2013 
Dear all, 

Issue 203: It was clear in Stockholm that in the case of digitisation, representation is more adequate than incorporates. 

Thus, there are other situations which must be covered by "incorporation" as it was described in issue 203. In what way will the new property be different from P106 is composed of (forms part of)? 

The scope note of P106: "This property associates an instance of E90 Symbolic Object with a part of it that is by itself an instance of E90 Symbolic Object, such as fragments of texts or clippings from an image." 

The scope note of R14 incorporates (is incorporated in) from FRBRoo: 

"This property associates an instance of F22 Self-Contained Expression with an instance of F2 Expression that was included in it and that is a realisation of an independent work. The incorporated expression may be self-contained or fragmentary. 

This property makes it possible to recognise the autonomous status of the incorporated expression, which was created in a distinct context, and can be incorporated in many distinct self-contained expressions, and to highlight the difference between structural and accidental whole-part relationships between conceptual entities. 

It accounts for many cultural facts that are quite frequent and significant: the inclusion of a poem in an anthology, the re-use of an operatic aria in a new opera, the use of a reproduction of a painting for a book cover or a CD booklet, the integration of textual quotations, the presence of lyrics in a song that sets those lyrics to music, the presence of the text of a play in a movie based on that play, etc." 

The difference between the two is the "autonomous status" of the incorporated expression. 

Thus, in the last Waldseemuller map example from issue 205, what is shown in the image is a watermark. Thus, this is not part of the map as a geometrical expression but rather a part of the structure of the paper on which the map was printed. One could say that the Waldseemuller document incorporates the map as well as a number of occurrences of the watermark. 

According to the article cited in Issue 203, there is also an issue of incorporation at play between different levels of symbols, e.g., between letter level and word level. 

Although there is clearly a difference between "incorporation" and "composed of", it is not clear to me if this is a nuance which needs to be captured in museum documentation systems. Thus, I have not been able to decide whether there is a need to introduce "incorporation" into CRM. It will take further study of the evidence and its relevance to museum documentation to find that out.

Outcome: 

(203) open until a real example is formulated. 
(227)A notion for complete incorporation is needed for CRM, The issue 227 is opened again. 
(205) the scope note of P138 is changed to the following "This property establishes the relationship between an E36 Visual Item and the entity that it visually represents. 

Any entity may be represented visually. This property is part of the fully developed path from E24 Physical Man-Made Thing through P65 shows visual item (is shown by), E36 Visual Item, P138 represents (has representation) to E1 CRM Entity, which is shortcut by P62depicts (is depicted by). P138.1 mode of representation allows the nature of the representation to be refined. 

This property is also used for the relationship between an original and a digitisation of the original by the use of techniques such as digital photography, flatbed or infrared scanning. Digitisation is here seen as a process with a mechanical, causal component rendering the spatial distribution of structural and optical properties of the original and does not necessarily include any visual similarity identifiable by human observation." 

The following example has been added: "the digital file found at http://www.emunch.no/N/full/No-MM_N0001-01.jpg (E73) represents page 1 of Edvard Munch's manuscript MM N 1, Munch-museet (E73) mode of representation Digitisation (E55)" 

Also MD will give an example from 3D coform. 

29th CRM-SIG meeting, Heraklion, October 2013


In 30th CIDOC SIG and the 23rd FRBR-CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig added the following example to P138

"The 3D model VAM_A.200-1946_trace_1M.ply (E73) represents Victoria & Albert Museum’s  Madonna and child sculpture (visual work) A.200-1946 (E22) mode of representation 3D surface (E55)"

and assigned to Steve to improve  the scope note of P138

"

Meetings discussed: