Issue 332: Properties of S10 Material Substantial of CRMsci

Starting Date: 
2017-03-23
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Proposed
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.

 

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 Martijn 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 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 20/9/2017

n 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.

Meetings discussed: