Issue 360: LRMoo

Starting Date: 
2017-04-05
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

In the 38th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 31nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the members of Consolidation Editorial Group of the IFLA FRBR Review Group: Pat Riva, Patrick Le Bœuf, and Maja Žumer presented to the crm-sig the new Library Reference Model (LRM) .  The crm-sig and the frbr-sig  decided to  harmonizing it with FRBRoo and CIDOC CRM. The outcome of the discussion is documented in  the minutes of this meeting.

 

Heraklion, April 2017

In the 39th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 32nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-frbr sig worked on harmonization of the approved by IFLA LRM with FRBRoo. The outcome of this work documented in the minutes.

Heraklion, October 2017

 

Current Proposal: 

posted by Pat on 5/12/2017

Hello Martin,

We have a first group of drafts for LRMoo for you comments. These are still very much drafts and we are aware that there is some lack of editorial consistency due to each person working separately on drafts without seeing the full picture. We are still missing a draft of the proposed merger of F3 Manifestation Product Type and F24 Publication Expression (and its related F19, F30, F32 and properties), but most of the classes we discussed in October are included.

​We have also made a first draft of the LRM(er) to LRMoo mapping. Since we did not discuss the attributes in LRM(er) in October, the mapping shows some that are not obvious and may raise issues.

One thing we will need to discuss in January is how the LRM representative expression attributes will fit with the existing properties for representative expression and representative manifestation.

Looking forward to hearing what you think.

posted by Martin on 15/12/2017

I am working through it. It just made a formal exercise to check that all properties of deleting Individual Work and F22/F23 are consistent. Attached.
I'll look now at the F3/F24 merger.

posted by Martin on 16/12/2017

Dear Pat, all,

Just thinking about the F3 Manifestation Product Type and F24 Publication Expression merger.

A possible solution is a rethinking:

Publication Expression as the expression that includes determination of optical/material features of the Item,
and hence are F3.

If this includes the Manifestation Singleton as immediate manual work, and not a singular print,
this concept of expression extends to the hard-to-define borderlines between manually intended features and
not-intended features, such as slipping of a pen.

Then, we have to rethink Item. Is a painting an item, or a Manifestation Singleton? Is a booklet of paintings
an Item? I think we should somewhere restrict ourselves to some form of signs.

Is an inscription on a wall an Item? I'd say not.

(I would not like to include Patrick's remark that libraries continue to say they have an exemplar. I'd regard this as too
library specific. That's rights, as Patrick stated, but I do not see why we should change "Item" to this idea, because it
leaves the real Item undefined. Also, the purpose of FRBR was to serve the library user??)

The archival practice to bind things together as storage units must not be confused with the publisher intentions.

I'd tend to see an Item as a physical mobile object intended as a message to some public, i.e., not bound to a single receiver, as a
letter, but to be distributed (or go from hand to hand). That is an intention based definition.

Then, publication expression/ Manifestation would be the ultimate (relevant) form definition for the distribution.
Does it make sense to distinguish an "author expression" ?

Border cases are manuscripts with unique texts, but also desktop publishing. They include both aspects in one process and one product.
That is a strong argument to make F3 a case of expression (with optical/physical features).

The question is, if we would distinguish a non-optical Expression type. But I can imagine all transitions from an audio text to
a full pdf lay-out. So, may be more a question of a typology (than making a prototypical process the world and ignore the rest?)
that defines expression types that are "not yet publishable".

Then we are back at the question of the relevant signs, because any carrier has all optical and physical features.

So, rethinking, what does an author sending a text in Word or hand-written, but NOT MEANING the editor to use the layout?

posted by Martin on 17/12/2017

I add my latest proposal for the F3/F24 merger. Please comment. This is more complex!

posted by Pat on 18/12/2017Hi Martin,

Much food for thought here.

For F35 Nomen Use Statement: I am no longer convinced that it is a subclass of F2 Expression. Since we consider that an F2 Expression must express some F1 Work, and I cannot see what work is expressed by a nomen use statement. I think instead that F35 should be a subclass of E90 Symbolic Object.

For R4 carriers provided by, I agree that E90 Symbolic Object is better as the domain than F2. Any symbolic object can have carriers, not just an expression.

This fits well with your observation that F32 Carrier Production Event is more general than F3, as any E90 can have carriers produced for it.

For R5 has component, I agree with making it also a subproperty of P106

Declaring F3 Manifestation as a subclass of F2 Expression will be very unexpected to our readers and will have to be carefully explained in the scope note, as in the E-R formulation of LRM we have declared Expression and Manifestation to be disjoint. But in LRM we do not explicitly acknowledge that all manifestations are one-to-one with publication expressions, and thus have an essential nature as an aggregate (where the publisher's contribution is often minimized in cataloguing practice, but of course it must be there). Once we see it this way, then it does makes sense that the F3 Manifestation which is basically a specific kind of aggregating expression, is a subclass of F2.

For item, yes it is true that it must be something intended to be shared/multiply used, or else it would not be possible to have it in a library. And so I think I agree with this observation:

I'd tend to see an Item as a physical mobile object intended as a message to some public, i.e., not bound to a single receiver, as a
letter, but to be distributed (or go from hand to hand). That is an intention based definition.

I do hesitate to treat different content types separately, audio vs written or visual notation.

Posted by Maja on 19/12/2017

I agree with all except the Manifestation as subclass of Expression. I am not sure that Manifestation is an aggregating expression. Manifestation is the aggregate, the result, and it also embodies the aggregating expression. We also need the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation (with layout design, particular font, colour etc) in order to cluster all publications embodying the same expression (text in this example)…

posted by Martin on 19/12/2017

Dear Maja,

On 12/19/2017 12:49 PM, Žumer, Maja wrote:
>
> Hi,
>

>
> I agree with all except the Manifestation as subclass of Expression. I am not sure that Manifestation is an aggregating expression. Manifestation is the aggregate, the result, and it also embodies the aggregating expression. We also need the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation (with layout design, particular font, colour etc) in order to cluster all publications embodying the same expression (text in this example)…

I think there some fundamental methodological question to clarify:

A) If F2 and F3 do not have a common superclass, you need to define which substance and identity criteria are different for Manifestation and Expression in ALL cases. This must not be confused with "the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation". That would be a logical mistake.  If the Manifestation is basically a bit a wider concept than the Publication Expression, it is still distinct from all non-publication expressions, albeit a special case of Expression.

B) Do all non-publication expressions have common characteristics beyond being Expressions? If not, we only need a typology of expressions which are definitely NOT publication expressions, such as a text identified as a sequence of of words or characters.

C) Are there cases in which we cannot separate the Manifestation from any other Expression?  I argue that in desktop publishing, there are cases
of Expressions that cannot be distinguished from Manifestation, and primary manuscripts, if the intended message contains the physical appearance. If, on the other side, we argue that we can extract from any Manifestation a distinct Expression, albeit a secondary interpretation of an original work, we need to define which composition of levels of signs a manifestation must necessarily have. Can we do that?

D) Is the Manifestation result of a Work, an intellectual product with associated IPRs or not?  If yes, it must be a kind of Expression. The only solution to maintain
A disjointness of F2 and F3 would be, to require F2 to be of a special form of of signs not shared by publication expressions, e.g. at least a character level without typeface, and to define a "super expression" which is more than F2 and F3. This may imply however, that there are Manifestations without any other Expression, as above, or to restrict F2 as something which in any case can be "manifestated" with substantially added features.

If Manifestation is NOT an intellectual product, we are back at the discussion between incidental carrier forms and product types, i.e.mechanical questions.

If I can get a clear, consistent answer to these question, I can think about a solution 

posted by Martin on 5/1/2018

I wish you a Happy New Year!

Should we publish the attached to CRM-SIG before the meeting? All further editing will depend on if we agree  on this logic...
Is there any mistake in it, any alternative to it?

posted by Pat on 8/1/2018

Yes, I think it will help people prepare to have this in advance.
I would propose to also distribute in advance the mapping from LRM(er) to LRMoo that Melanie prepared. I have attached it here.

In the reduction, there is one small point where I have a doubt. I am no longer convinced that F35 Nomen Use Statement is a subclass of F2 Expression, as it does not have a corresponding F1 Work. Rather, I think F35 is a subclass of E90 Symbolic Object.

The other draft rewritten scope notes do not have to be posted in advance. We can look at them when we are together, as we get to them.

posted by Trond on 9/1/2018

Dear all,

Merging F24 Publication Expression with F3 Manifestation Product Type is a needed simplification, but is also rather challenging to do this. I was assigned the job of drafting a scope note for the merged class, but failed completely because of my work load before Christmas.

Some comments to the before-christmas discussion:

The solution of merging F24 into F3 by keeping F3 as subclass of Type or Product Type but leaving out the inheritance from F2, allows us to distinguish well between the content of the publication and the publication as a whole. This works well for what we commonly think of as publications as their identity mainly is defined by the associated publication event rather than the nature of its substance. However, as we have seen, this model gets problematic when we try to be more generic and use it on other resources that are not the direct products of a typical publication process.

We also see that it is difficult to deal with other intellectual contributions that may be evident from the manifestation such as the selection, arrangement and presentation of expressions. If we merge F24 and F3, we also implicitly remove the possibility to relate the Publication Work (or other subtypes of Container Work) to the manifestation, simply because there will be no individual and identifiable expression (in the form of signs) of a Publication Work or an Aggregation Work. One solution can of course be to remove the Container Work and its subtypes, and maybe come up with some other solution for describing intellectual contributions in the form of selections, arrangements and presentations of expressions but this will probably only complicate the model.

Merging F3 into F24 and keeping the subclassing of F2 Expression is the alternative approach. As pointed out it is not in line with the LRM, although it kind of makes sense to view expression-manifestation as a continuum of more and more specifically designed signs. A main benefit of this is that it will make the model a bit simpler with respect to modelling Publication, Aggregation and Serial Works.  Having this inheritance does not mean that we remove Manifestation (Product Type) as a specific entity from the model. It is a rather crucial to distinguish between Expressions and Manifestations, whether we want to show the contents of a manifestation, or the alternative publications of an expression.

Attached is a pdf with figures I made to try to figure out the problem.

posted by Pat on 10/1/2018

Hi Trond,

My first reaction is that your second drawing looks like the LRM general model of aggregates figure 5.7, with the publication work taking the role of the aggregating work, and the F3 is an aggregate manifestation.

posted by Martin on 10/1/2018

I agree with your comments. I would however generalize F3 into Manifestation, and have the product type as a special case.Then, F3 determines all features or appearance, regardless if singleton, electronic publishing, or industrial printing.

posted by Trond on 10/1/2018

Yes, it will be the same.

The problem I see is that LRM defines the aggregating work as the selection and sequencing, but does not define what the substance of the aggregating expression is. The general expression definition does not really match this case, and I am not sure if I believe in the existence of this entity in between the Aggregating Work and the Manifestation  

posted by Melanie Roche on 14/1/2018

Dear all, 

I have updated the draft of the mapping from LRMer to LRMoo, based on comments Pat sent me a while ago. Attached is the result. In red, lines that need further elaboration from the SIG meeting next week. Doubtless other things will come up following our discussions, but I wanted at least these lines to stand out.
 
I did not change anything regarding style: I prefer to be sure there is a consensus regarding non-merged lines for multiple mappings before undoing everything. Personally I think merged lines are easier on the eye and more readily understandable, but if there is a methodological reason why they shouldn’t be used, please tell me.
 
My apologies for doing this at the very last minute. 

In the 40th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 33nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig reviewed the proposed changes by Martin, Pat and Melanie for the harmonization  of LRM with FRBR. The outcome of the discussion and the resulted changes in text of LRM-FRBR is here.

HW have been assigned to Pat, MD an Maja

Cologne, January 2018

Posted by Martin on 21/3/2018

Dear All,

Here my humble attempt to settle the oldest dispute in this working group, please don't beat me

F3 Manifestation
Subclass of:        F2 Expression

Scope note:         This class comprises artistic or intellectual expressions detailed and elaborated to the level of the actual or intended sensory impression of a respective carrier or other materialization of it with the purpose of communicating it to some public. Typically, it identifies a publishable form of the expression, but it may also be a unique form produced on some carrying material manually. In case of traditional publications in paper form, the sensory impression would comprise the optical and may be even tactile appearance of texts and illustrations in natural lighting conditions and the look and feel of the carrying material. In case of digital media, it would comprise the audio-visual or tactile signals produced by an adequate reading device including possible forms of interaction with it. If a material digital carrier is foreseen as medium of distribution it will further comprise its look and feel.

Instances of F3 Manifestation are distinct from typical expressions of authorial content, which are defined and subject to copyright issues at a higher level of symbolic representation: For instance, the authorial content of a publication and its copyright in traditional text writing would only be defined at the script level, whereas the manifestation would pertain to adding the type face, layout of pages and more. In other cases, the author himself may be responsible for the manifestation form of the expression as an integral work. In these cases, one may still distinguish the script content from the final optical or other sensory form. As such, F3 Manifestation and script-level forms of expressions must be regarded as special cases of F2 Expression, without making them equal.

                           An instance of F3 Manifestation may incorporate one or more than one instance of F2 Expression defined at the symbolic level reflecting the authors’ content of the manifestation and all additional input by the publisher; and the appropriate types of physical features for the medium of distribution if applicable. For example, hardcover and paperback are two distinct publications (i.e. two distinct instances of F3 Manifestation Product Type) even though authorial and editorial content are otherwise identical in both publications. The activity of cataloguing aims at the most accurate listing of features or traits of an instance of F3 Manifestation Product Type that are sufficient to distinguish it from another instance of F3 Manifestation Product Type.

In case of industrial products such as printed books, but also digital material, an instance of F3 Manifestation can be regarded as the “species”, and all copies as “specimens” of it. In these cases, an instance of F3 Manifestation defines all of the features or traits that instances of F5 Item normally display in order to be regarded as functional copies of a particular publication. However, due to problems in the production or copying process or subsequent events, one or more instances of F5 Item materializing it may not exhibit all these features or traits; yet such instances still retain their relationship to the same instance of F3 Manifestation.

Posted by Pat on 15/5/2018

This is the homework relating to LRMoo. I think it reacts to and continues from the series of emails that Martin sent in March. I will look to see if the R30 HW assigned to me and Maja is in this file or if I should do something more. I will also check to make sure that one of us does an updated version of the LRM mapping so that we can review it one more time.

In the 41st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 34th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed the HW by Pat, Trond and Maja and decided the following.

(a) F1 Work scope note: The propositional content accepted but editing is needed for following the  rules (substance, identity, existence, utility and purpose) proposed for the description of a class.
(b) R10 has member (is member of): to add a new property  Rxx has part which should be superproperty of R10 makeing clear the role of this property as generalization over more specific forms of membership. This HW assigned to MD. Also the sig assigned to Pat, Trond   to re write the scope note.
(c) R3 is realised in (realises). No conclusion about the different work realizations (partially or comprehensively realizes)
(d) R5 has component (is component of): There is a text in the scope not under consideration. Re-examination is needed  for the conditions for incorporating foreign expressions as parts
(e) F2 Expression: to add original examples from previous F22 of FRBRoo 3, to check if F2 Expression is a superclass of F34 KOS and if R41 is needed
(f) F3 Manifestation: HW is assigned to Martin to add a reference to the fact that an F3 can also be an E99 Product Type (HW to MD). A text to explain how LRM differs from FRBRoo with regards to manifestation product type and manifestation singleton (Pat, Trond, Maja)
(g) R4 embodies (is embodied in):the scope note should be expanded to indicate the symbolic level of incorporation (HW to MD) 
(h) R7 is materialization of (is materialized in), F30 Manifestation Creation : new revised scope notes.
(i) F5 Item: is revised. It is decided  to enhance the scope note of P128 to point to the fact that carrying a symbolic object is never precisely complete (HW to MD)
(j) F55: deleted
(k) Fn storage unit is not accepted, we should add a paragraph to the F5 item scope note about using P46 and E19 to model the storage unit object  (HW PLB)
F34 KOS
(l) F34 title and scope note was changed
(m) F35 Nomen Use Statement, F12 Nomen: definition changed
(n) decision to form a discussion group for making a theory of giving identity of information objects. MD asks for participants to this discussion. OE will participate
(o) F33 Reproduction Event: scope note changed
(p) F54 Utilised Information Carrier: scope note changed. It remains pending the name change.
(q) R30, R31  : deleted
(r) F41: to be deprecated.
(s) F42: minor changes to scope note. It should be  revised and the properties should be redesign (HW to MD)
(t) R40: It should be re design

The revised scope notes and the discussion notes are here

Lyon, May 2018

 

 

Posted by Patrick Le Boeuf  on 30/6/2018

During the FRBRoo/LRMoo meeting on May 24th, I was asked to add a paragraph to the scope note of F5 Item in order to introduce the notion of storage unit without declaring a formal class for it. I also used this opportunity to change the examples, as they were intended to highlight the distinction between Item and Manifestation Singleton, which is no longer relevant as we deprecated Manifestation Singleton. Here is my homework:

Posted by Martin on 19/11/2018

Here my attempt for a "part" of a work..

Posted by Martin on 21/11/2018

F3 / R4 modifications added...here

Posted by Pat on 22/11/2018

This is the latest version of the ER-OO mapping. As you can see there are still just a few loose ends in attributes and relationships.

Posted by martin on 24/11/2018

Dear All,

Here my change of scope note:

Old:

P128 carries (is carried by)

Domain:              E18 Physical Thing

Range:                E90 Symbolic Object

Subproperty of:   E70 Thing.P130 shows features of (features are also found on):E70 Thing

Superproperty of: E24 Physical Man-Made Thing. P65 shows visual item (is shown by): E36 Visual Item

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

Scope note:         This property identifies an E90 Symbolic Object carried by an instance of E18 Physical Thing.

Examples:         

§  Matthew’s paperback copy of Reach for the Sky (E84) carries the text of Reach for the Sky (E73)

In First Order Logic:

                           P128(x,y) ⊃ E18(x)

                           P128(x,y) ⊃ E90(y)

                           P128(x,y) ⊃ P130(x,y)

New:

Scope note:   This property identifies an E90 Symbolic Object carried by an instance of E18 Physical Thing. Since an instance of   E90 Symbolic Object is defined as an immaterial idealization over potentially multiple carriers, an individual   realization on a physical carrier may be defective due to deterioration or shortcomings in the process of creating   the realization compared to the intended ideal. As long as these defects to not substantially affect the complete   recognition of the respective symbolic object, we still regard that it carries an instance of this Symbolic Object. If   these defects are of scholarly interest, the individual realization can be modeled as a Physical Feature. Note, that any   instance of E90 Symbolic Object   incorporated (P165)in the carried Symbolic Object is also carried by the same instance of E18 Physical Thing.

This needs to be formulated as deduction in FOL!

Posted by Steve  on 28/11/2018

Scope note:      

This property identifies an E90 Symbolic Object carried by an instance of E18 Physical Thing. Since an instance of E90 Symbolic Object is defined as an immaterial idealization over potentially multiple carriers, any individual realization on a particular physical carrier may be defective, due to deterioration or shortcomings in the process of creating the realization compared to the intended ideal. As long as such defects do not substantially affect the complete recognition of the respective symbolic object, it is still regarded as carrying an instance of this E90 Symbolic Object. If these defects are of scholarly interest, the particular realization can be modelled as an instance of E25 Man-Made Feature. Note, that any instance of E90 Symbolic Object incorporated (P165) in the carried Symbolic Object is also carried by the same instance of E18 Physical Thing.

NB I have changed this to point to E25 rather than just E26 Physical Feature

 

 

In the 42nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 35th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-frbr sig reviewed and revised the following:

  • New scope note for F3 Manifestation
  • New scope note for F5 Item
  • Enhancing the scope note of P128 carries (is carried by)
  • New scope note for the new property  Rxx ‘has part (forms part of’)
  • Redraft the scope note of R4 embodies (is embodied in)
  • LRMer to LRMoo mapping: LRM-E3-A3 :  In what concerns the Intended Audience attribute of LRM, it was proposed that instead of coming up with a new Rxx property such that would link an F2 Expression to an activity pattern, to be used by a specific group of people –which, in its turn would function as a constraint on the type of the activity –the alternative of extending E71 Man-made Thing : P103 was intended for (was intention of): E55 Type is best opted for. The reasoning is that the description “children’s book” does not evoke a particular use in the context of given group; what it does instead, is relate the designated object to the group of people it is suited for –in this case children.  Given the disagreement, it was decided that expanding the scope of P103 ‘was intended for (was intention of) be formed into a new issue.
The new scope notes  can be found here

 

Berlin, November 2018

In the 43rd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 36th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig reviewed Pat's proposal for mappings of LRM and LRMoo and assigned to TA to produce the FRBR-LRM graphs by May 2019. Also the CB should produce a clean document for FRBR-LRM which will essentially comprise of the numbers of classes and properties, –not their scope notes, . The model will be based on the mapping of LRMer to LRMoo.  The details of the discussion may be found here.

Heraklion, March 2019

 

posted by Martin on 12/5/2019

Dear All,

Here the scope note for the new class "Externalization Event" proposed in the last meeting. This unifies the expression creation with the performances on a higher level.

The idea being, that the "true" expression is always the activity, often being accidental what is recorded and in which way. The manuscript writing can be seen as a lone performance, with a patient paper under the hand holding the pen.

Fxx Externalization Event

Subclass of:        E7 Activity

Superclass of:     F28 Expression Creation (may be superclass of E65 Creation!)

                              F31 Performance

Scope note:         This class comprises activities of producing signs or sensory impressions as an organized, coherent and complete whole,intended for being received in this completeness by some audience, either directly via their senses or via persistent media at any later time. It comprises in particular novel expressions of thought, art in all forms, including rendering existing expressions, such as musical scores, theater plays or texts, in an individual way in performing arts or by graphic design.

Examples:          The creation of the original manuscript score of ‘Uwertura tragiczna’ by Andrzej Panufnik in 1942 in Warsaw (F28)

The reconstruction from memory of the manuscript score of ‘Uwertura tragiczna’ by Andrzej Panufnik in 1945 after the original score was destroyed during the war (F28)

Performing the ballet entitled ‘Rite of spring’, as choreographed by Pina Bausch, in Avignon, at the Popes’ Palace, on July 7, 1995 [individual performance] (F31)

Performing the operatic work entitled ‘Dido and Aeneas’, as directed by Edward Gordon Craig and conducted by Martin Shaw, in London, Hampstead Conservatoire, on May 17, 18, and 19, 1900 [run of performances] (F31)

Properties:          R19 created a realisation of (was realised through): F1 Work

The property R19 goes up from F28 to new class. We need a more general property from the Externalization Event to the persistent expressions it produced or contributed to, be it a manuscript, a recording, a painting of a theater scene. This property should generalize over R17 created (was created by): F2 Expression.

I could think of "Rxx has memorization in: F2 Expression".

The point is, that the persistent Expression could be a product directly of the "externalizers" or by the a member of the audience. If an author dictates a text to a scribe, or Platon reporting Sokrates, there is not much difference to someone taking video from a theater performance. This means, that the range of "Rxx has memorization in: F2 Expression" may or may not be product of another expression creation. It will however always require presence of the secondary creators in the primary externalization (or of a robot recording device).

Looking forward to your comments!

Posted by Patrick on 13/5/2019

Dear Martin, and dear all,
I'm sorry I couldn't attend the meeting, and I'm therefore not aware of the discussions that underlie this scope note. I think that the idea of declaring a specific class for the process of conveying information in a sensory form (for this is how I understand this new class) is extremely useful and interesting, so much so that I think it shouldn't be confined to LRMoo alone, but should be uplifted into CIDOC CRM, with additional examples taken from the universe of discourse of CIDOC CRM (such as a sculptor making a sculpture, an art student painting a copy of Mona Lisa, the Greek runner notifying Athenian citizens that their soldiers have won the Marathon battle, etc. -- perhaps even Martin or Steve giving a CIDOC CRM tutorial?).
In the proposed scope note, which is overall fine with me, I simply have some doubts about the clause "intended for being received in this completeness by some audience"; while I agree that this is generally the case, there are also many counter-examples: rehearsals are instances of Externalization Event, although the intention is only indirect here (performers rehearse in order to improve what the audience will receive in a later event); a teenager writing a diary may not want any audience to read the externalized Expression, and it is unclear whether Franz Kafka or Emily Dickison were OK with the idea of having their externalized Expressions reach an audience, as they requested that all their manuscripts be destroyed after their death; and I'm also thinking of Mediaeval and Eastern performances which are only intended to be seen by God or the gods (unless we regard God or the gods as a valid instance of audience). However, it is possible to solve the issue by saying that the instances of E39 Actor who externalize such Expressions are themselves their own audience, possibly the only audience for which those complete Expressions are intended.
As for the label for the new property, rather than "has memorization", I would think of something like "Rxx is witnessed in / is a witness of" (in the sense of codicology and textual criticism: manuscripts are called "witnesses" of a text tradition). The resulting Expression is but a "witness" of what happened during the Externalization Event.
At any rate, congratulations for this significant addition to the model, no matter whether it is LRMoo or CIDOC CRM!

 

Posted by Martin on 20/5/2019

Dear Patrick,

Thank you very much for your elaborate thoughts!

On 5/13/2019 11:45 AM, patrick.le-boeuf@bnf.fr wrote:
> Dear Martin, and dear all,
> I'm sorry I couldn't attend the meeting, and I'm therefore not aware of the discussions that underlie this scope note. I think that the idea of declaring a specific class for the process of conveying information in a sensory form (for this is how I understand this new class) is extremely useful and interesting, so much so that I think it shouldn't be confined to LRMoo alone, but should be uplifted into CIDOC CRM, with additional examples taken from the universe of discourse of CIDOC CRM (such as a sculptor making a sculpture, an art student painting a copy of Mona Lisa, the Greek runner notifying Athenian citizens that their soldiers have won the Marathon battle, etc. -- perhaps even Martin or Steve giving a CIDOC CRM tutorial?).

 

That is indeed a justified thought, but all the context comes from LRM, and we have problems to keep CRMbase concise enough. So I'd rather tend to leave it in LRM.

> In the proposed scope note, which is overall fine with me, I simply have some doubts about the clause "intended for being received in this completeness by some audience"; while I agree that this is generally the case, there are also many counter-examples: rehearsals are instances of Externalization Event, although the intention is only indirect here (performers rehearse in order to improve what the audience will receive in a later event); a teenager writing a diary may not want any audience to read the externalized Expression, and it is unclear whether Franz Kafka or Emily Dickison were OK with the idea of having their externalized Expressions reach an audience, as they requested that all their manuscripts be destroyed after their death; and I'm also thinking of Mediaeval and Eastern performances which are only intended to be seen by God or the gods (unless we regard God or the gods as a valid instance of audience). However, it is possible to solve the issue by saying that the instances of E39 Actor who externalize such Expressions are themselves their own audience, possibly the only audience for which those complete Expressions are intended.

Well, difficult. In any case, the manuscripts were in a form potentially for an external audience. I wrote this phrase to make sure that not each utterance of a phoneme is regarded as externalization event. Since we model "bottom-up", I'd like to make sure we catch well the regular cases. The question, if private notes should be published, is quite interesting. Anybody has a right to hide and destroy his products, be it artists, researchers, technicians or amateurs in any capacity. The posthumous hunt for half-finished products of an artist is another social phenomenon.

For the time being, I'd rather concentrate on the intended externalizations, taking gods for a valid audience. But, we need a good way to describe the posthumous publication of fragmentary material. I'd rather tend to blame the editor for it?
> As for the label for the new property, rather than "has memorization", I would think of something like "Rxx is witnessed in / is a witness of" (in the sense of codicology and textual criticism: manuscripts are called "witnesses" of a text tradition). The resulting Expression is but a "witness" of what happened during the Externalization Event.

Sounds intellectually very clean, but I fear the narrower sense of "witness" will confuse people in case of recordings and simple writing??

Posted by Martin on 28/5/2019

Dear All,

Once we define Manifestation to be the signs and design, rather the copy, I propose the following redefinition of the CL properties:

CLP2: has physical form: E55 Type (including material) (defined form of items, or “digital”)

CLP43: defines dimension: E54 Dimension

CLP46: obsolete

CLP57: number of parts: E60 number (physical parts, or files is digital)

CLP104,105 obsolete

CLR6 obsolete

I'll send scope note soon!

Posted by Martin on 3/6/2019

Dear All,

Here my suggestion for a new scope note for "CPL2". 'CPL2' itself should be replaced by an adequate 'R' number:

CLP2 has physical form (is physical form of)

Domain:                F3 Manifestation Product Type

Range:                   E55 Type

Quantification:      (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:           This property associates an instance of F3 Manifestation with an instance of E55 Type describing the kind of physical form foreseen for the exemplars carrying this F3 Manifestation. In case the F3 Manifestation is intended to be used and distributed in digital form, the property should describe the form in which a physical copy can be obtained. In case the F3 Manifestation is an abstraction of a singleton item, the property describes the actual physical form the F3 Manifestation is abstracted from. This logical inference is an induction along the path that can be modelled as: F3 Manifestation R7i has example F5 Item P2 has type: E55 Type.

It can happen that a given exemplar, or subset of exemplars, originally produced, or intended to be produced, with that characteristic, accidentally lacks it. This fact should be recorded as a property of F5 Item, and not of F3 Manifestation.

Examples:             The sound recording entitled ‘The Glory (????) of the human voice’, identified by label and label number ‘RCA Victor Gold Seal GD61175’, containing recordings of musical works performed by Florence Foster Jenkins (F3) CLP2 has physical form  Compact Disc (E55)
 

Posted by Pat on 10/6/2019

I'm attaching the little bit of file cleaning I have managed to do.

- Updated mapping from LRMer taking the notes from the March meeting and the latest full file into account. There are still some questions in my mind, but I could just have missed something.

- Table starting with all classes and properties defined in FRBRoo 2.4 indicating what our decision about them is (and the meeting it was taken). Again I might have missed something, and sometimes one decision looks like it should have other consequences but I didn't see them in the notes.

the mappings can be found here and the decisions here

Posted by Trond on 10/6/2019

I have also assembled a diagram. Posted it on the arm-list but maybe did not get through yet.

The LRMoo.svg file should display in most browsers. 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2anv0lpvknj1dd7/AABK_u_RQN-qCi6s1Kcxhq5Ea?dl=0

Also you may find the svg file downloaded here

Posted by Martin on 11/6/2019

Dear All,

Here more proposed scope notes for the redefined CLP properties:

CLP43 defines dimension (is defined for):

Domain:                F3 Manifestation

Range:                   E54 Dimension

Quantification:      (1,n:1,1)

Scope note:           This property associates an instance of F3 Manifestation with an instance of E54 Dimension characterizing aspects of the symbolic content, such as word counts, or of the physical form foreseen for the exemplars carrying this F3 Manifestation, such as number of pages. In case the F3 Manifestation is an abstraction of a singleton item, the property may describe dimensions of the actual physical form the F3 Manifestation is abstracted from. This logical inference is an induction along the path that can be modelled as: F3 Manifestation R7i has example F5 Item P2 has type: E55 Type.

It can happen that a given exemplar, or subset of exemplars, originally produced, or intended to be produced, with that characteristic, accidentally lacks it. This fact should be recorded as a property of F5 Item, and not of F3 Manifestation.

Examples:             The publication entitled ‘Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: final report’, published by K. G. Saur in 1998, identified by ISBN ‘3-598-11382-X’ (F3) CLP43 defines dimension height (E54): P90 has value ‘24’ (E60) and P91 has unit ‘cm’ (E58)

The jigsaw puzzle entitled ‘Map of the New York city subway system’, designed by Stephen J. Voorhies and released around 1954 by the Union Dimes Savings Bank (F3) CLP43 defines dimension length and height (E54) P3 has note ‘46 x 29 cm’ (E62)

CLP46 defines material part (defines part for)

Domain:                F3 Manifestation

Range:                   F3 Manifestation

Quantification:      (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:           This property associates an instance of F3 Manifestation which prescribes that all its physical exemplars will contain as separatable parts an exemplar of the associated instance of F3 Manifestation. In case the F3 Manifestation is intended to be used and distributed in digital form, the property should describe the form in which a physical copy can be obtained. In case the F3 Manifestation is an abstraction of a singleton item, the property describes the actual physical form the F3 Manifestation is abstracted from. This logical inference is an induction along the path that can be modelled as: F3 Manifestation R7i has example F5 Item P2 has type: E55 Type.

Examples:             The publication product identified by ISBN ‘0618260587’ and consisting of a 3-volume edition of J.R.R. Tolkien’s ‘The Lord of the rings’ (F3) CLP46 defines material part the publication product identified by ISBN ‘0618260595’ and consisting of an edition of J.R.R Tolkien’s ‘The two towers’ (F3)

The publication product issued by Deutsche Grammophon in 1998 and consisting of a recording of Richard Wagner’s ‘Der fliegende Holländer’ as performed in 1991 by Plácido Domingo, Cheryl Studer et al., and conducted by Giuseppe Sinopoli (F3) CLP46 defines material part the publication product consisting of printed programme notes and libretto with French and English translations (F3)

CLP57 defines number of parts

Domain:                F3 Manifestation Product Type

Range:                   E60 Number

Quantification:      (1,1:0,n)

Scope note:           This property associates an instance of F3 Manifestation with an instance of E60 Number, which denotes the number of physical units all exemplars of that publication should consist of. In case the F3 Manifestation is intended to be used and distributed in digital form, the property should describe the form in which a physical copy can be obtained. In case the F3 Manifestation is an abstraction of a singleton item, the property describes the actual physical form the F3 Manifestation is abstracted from. This logical inference is an induction along the path that can be modelled as: F3 Manifestation R7i has example F5 Item P2 has type: E55 Type.

Examples:             The jigsaw puzzle entitled ‘Map of the New York city subway system’, designed by Stephen J. Voorhies and released around 1954 by the Union Dimes Savings Bank (F3) CLP57 defines number of parts 76 (E60)

The publication entitled ‘History of costume: in slides, notes, and commentaries’ by Jeanne Button, Patricia Quinn Stuart, and Stephen Sbarge, released by Slide Presentations (New York) ca. 1975 (F3) CLP57 should have number of parts 1,491 (E60) [Number of physical units of the exemplar held by the Gelman Library of the George Washington University, as observed by a cataloguer from the Gelman Library of the George Washington University when he/she catalogued that particular exemplar and recorded the statement: ‘1,491 slides in 14 slide trays + 6 ring binders in cases (30 x 29 cm.)’]