Issue 332: Properties of S10 Material Substantial of CRMsci

Starting Date: 
2017-03-23
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

Posted by Chryssoula on 23/3/2107

Dear  All

The class S10 Material Substantial of CRMsci has the following definition:

S10 Material Substantial

Subclass of:  E70 Thing
Superclass of: S14 Fluid Body
  S11 Amount of Matter
  E18 Physical Thing
 

Scope note: This class comprises constellations of matter with a relative stability of any form sufficient to associate them with a persistent identity, such as being confined to certain extent, having a relative stability of form or structure, or containing a fixed amount of matter. In particular, it comprises physical things in the narrower sense and fluid bodies. It is an abstraction of physical substance for solid and non-solid things of matter.


Properties:
P46 is composed of (forms part of): S10 Material Substantial
O15 occupied (was occupied by): E53 Place

It has been proposed in the past to move the CIDOC CRM  properties  P44, P45 and P46  from E18 Physical Thing to E70 Thing for facilitating their inheritance  in S10. The decision of CRM SIG is still pending.

 

In the 38th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 31st FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig did not accepted the  request of moving P44 and P45 to E18. It is proposed to discuss with Carlo on FOL model of relation constraints and CEO to consider how to create a logical construct that will model evolution of knowledge/expansion of domain range.  

Heraklion, April 2017

Current Proposal: 

Posted by Martin  on 20/9/2017

Dear All,


I propose the following property for CRMSci:

O25 contains (is contained in)

 

Domain:              S10 Material Substantial

Range:                S10 Material Substantial

Superproperty of:E18 Physical Thing. P46 is composed of (forms part of): E18 Physical Thing

Quantification:    many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:         This property describes that an instance of S10 Material Substantial was or is contained for some time in another instance of S10 Material Substantial regardless if the identity of the involved instances is based on the persistence of the form of material or on material substance changing form.

 

In First Order Logic:

O25(x,y) ⊃ E18(x)

O25(x,y) ⊃ E18(y)

Posted by Franco on 20/9/2017

it looks very useful, but:

“O25 contains (is contained in)
[...] an instance of S10 Material Substantial was or is contained for some time in [...]”

Of course: 'X is contained in Y' means that X is contained in Y

Was the scope note proposed by M. de la Palisse?

Apart from that, it’s a great idea.

Posted by Martin on 20/9/2017

Dear Franco,

proposals welcome! One way to define it is the overlapping spatial extent. This comes in conflict with 2D surface features, except if we regard them not being infinitesimally thin. Another way is to define it by atoms. This comes again in conflict with 2D features, except if we regard surface molecules to carry the feature. If we regard pure form, we come in conflict with liquids in solid bodies, metabolism products etc. What about the content of a box, water in the sponge? The box "contains" but it is not part of it. I'd exclude that sense.
 

Posted by Martijn Van Leusen  on 20/9/2017

Dear Martin and Franco,

here it is perhaps relevant that we (Tymon de Haas and me, working on the fieldwalking extension to CRMarchaeo) have decided that surface finds should be regarded as objects contained in a stratigraphical unit (typically, the unit 'plough layer'), hence not 'on' the surface of that unit.
I cannot think of any truly 2D surface features, what would be an example of them? A soil mark feature on an airphoto perhaps? But there would be an inferred 3D feature causing that....

Posted by Robert Sanderson on 20/9/2017

Dear Franco, Martin,

To make sure I understand your comment, are you pointing out the direction of the predicate is the opposite to the direction implied by the scope note?  The predicate is that the subject X contains Y  (X > Y) whereas the scope note expresses the relationship as the subject X being contained in Y (X < Y).

If so, then I agree it would be nice to change the text of the scope note to have it align with the relationship’s direction  

Posted by Franco  on 20/9/2017

No, no, as any CRM property it is bi-directional. Changing the direction in the scope note would be useful, but would not have any effect on my comment.

I was only making a joke on the tautological scope note, which explains (ahem) that the meaning of "O25 contains (is contained)" is exactly “is contained”.

This is meant to point out that scope notes are definitions and should be carefully drafted. In mathematics, you cannot define a triangle just as "a triangle", you need to state that it is "a polygon with three edges/vertices".

Reference to M. de la Palisse as possible author of the scope note is explained, a bit verbosely, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_La_Palice
 

Posted by Martin on 20/7/2017

On 9/20/2017 5:43 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear Franco, Martin,
>
> To make sure I understand your comment, are you pointing out the direction of the predicate is the opposite to the direction implied by the scope note?  The predicate is that the subject X contains Y  (X > Y) whereas the scope note expresses the relationship as the subject X being contained in Y (X < Y).
>
> If so, then I agree it would be nice to change the text of the scope note to have it align with the relationship’s direction
Right! but my comment was to substantiate what we mean by "containing". 

Posted by Martin on 20/7/2017

On 9/20/2017 4:51 PM, van Leusen, P.M. wrote:
> Dear Martin and Franco,
>
> here it is perhaps relevant that we (Tymon de Haas and me, working on the fieldwalking extension to CRMarchaeo) have decided that surface finds should be regarded as objects contained in a stratigraphical unit (typically, the unit 'plough layer'), hence not 'on' the surface of that unit.
> I cannot think of any truly 2D surface features, what would be an example of them? A soil mark feature on an airphoto perhaps? But there would be an inferred 3D feature causing that....
Yes, agreed. If we regard 2D features, such as the face of a statue, as being thin but still extended in 3D, we can define O25 containment systematically by included matter.

Posted by Martin on 5/10/2017

This is my homework

 

In the 39th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 32nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting , the sig reviewed the examples in CRMsci proposed by MD and decided to add bibliography in APA style in footnotes. The sig made the following comments during the discussion

·        On S10:  New  proposal accepted: S10 O25 contains S10 would be super property of P46

·        About observation:     To make a definition to CRMinf about observation.

·        Situation is a construct of how to look in world and should  go in CRMnf

·        State is a construct of how long a thing did not change and should  go to CRMsci

·        We should make a second order theory for CRMsci

·        The CRMsci should be focus over observation

HW assigned to check editing issues Athena, Achile , Thanasis

CEO will communicate with Carlo

Heraklion, October 2017

Posted by Thanasis on 11/1/2018

<HW>


Please find attached a version with a few more examples from conservation, additions, changes and comments. I have not been involved from the beginning of the discussions for CRMsci, so if I am asking questions with obvious answers, please ignore them and I will catch up (eventually).

Some recurrent points:

1) Since the extension document is clearly linked to CRM core, I think that a lot of the narrative and explanation of the document conventions can be removed. One would be expected to have to refer to the main document and really work with both side-by-side. At the moment apart from the document becoming too long, we also run the risk of versions of text going out of sync.

2) There are repeated classes in various extensions and some which are almost the same but not quite. For newcomers (and I include myself) this is confusing. When I map to CRM core and CRMsci on 3M, I am offered two classes which appear identical and sometimes they are, in which case which one do I choose? Sorry, this is not a proposal. 

posted by Athina on 11/1/2018

<HW>

Please find attached a version of CRMsci with my HW

 

 

posted by Athina on 12/1/2018

In the attached version, I deleted the red marked text, I added Thanasis proposals (with grey highlighted text)  and mine proposals (with pink highlighted text) and also I made additions afterwards.