Issue 505: Winkelmann Graphics- a prototype for diagrams exemplifying STVs and reasoning

ID: 
505
Starting Date: 
2020-06-24
Working Group: 
4
Status: 
Open
Background: 

This issue is αcontinuation of issue 459 & 471 and concerns the winkelmann graphic figure 3 of version 7.0

Chryssoula

September 2020

 

Current Proposal: 

In the 47th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 40th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meetingMD: presented two versions of the slides (1st problematic, 2nd not so much). Wishes No.2 to serve as a prototype for diagrams exemplifying STVs and reasoning about them. Wants to know if the group thinks that this version of the diagram gives the correct impression of the symbolic move in space-time. The  comments of the group can be found here.

The sig decided to make  evote for the diagram once it’s ready.

HW to MD to redo the graph taking the following into consideration

  • smaller event bubbles
  • dotted lines for places and other things that carry on existing till present should extend to the top part of the timeline.
  • space axis: arrow-head to be removed. Space does not move.
  • add a legend with relevant CRM classes
  • Unknown roman creator → change to Unknown Roman creator
  • things that cease to exist, should not end in a pointy arrow but in an arrow with a full stop –like what happens to Winckelmann with *Winckelmann’s death* (so his mother, the Unknown Roman creator, the Original statue …)
  • HW to MD to introduce a heading and an accompanying text that would explain the diagram.

June 2020

Posted by Martin on 16/07/2020

Dear All,

Here the graphical update. Comments welcome. Text will follow.
 

Posted by Steve on 16/07/2020

I find the gradient colours extremely distracting, particularly the blue in the E2 Temporal Entities.
The green dotted lines linking to time and space are very effective.

Posted by George on 16/07/2020

I like the evolution

Posted by Martin on 16/07/2020

Just followed instructions in minutes

The gradient was intended to render the fuzzy nature of event STVs...

 

Posted by Thanasis on 16/07/2020

We also need a dot for mother's death, no?

Posted by Martin on 16/07/2020

Sure, attached typos removed. The new figure is here

 

Posted by Martin on 4/8/2020

Dear All,

Here my text for Fig 3:

"As mentioned above, the central concept of the CIDOC CRM is the representation of a part of reality that can be approximated as a network of things meeting in various combinations in spacetime. Using the same example from above, figure 3 illustrates this concept via an alternative symbolic representation. It aims at rendering the idea that people and things in the past have performed mostly unknown trajectories in spacetime and the historical facts known to us constrain their possible whereabouts for some limited time-spans to having been together at some known or unknown place.

We use a one-dimensional representation of space, as used in archaeology to describe the spatial  evolution of periods or cultures over time, and a vertical time axis. We symbolize the trajectories of things and people as fuzzy lines between events in order to render their relative indeterminacy between known events. Non-animate things use to be stationary if not transferred, whereas people may move around on their own.  We symbolize events as fuzzy ovals to render the fuzzy boundaries of events in space and time. Note that in this representation, as a general pattern, things may “survive” events, emerge from events or end in events. Beginning and ending of existence impose an additional temporal order on events of causal nature, which can be stronger than explicit dates. We symbolize the unreported ends of existence of people and things, which are also events, by a dot at the end of the trajectory."

Posted by Steve on 5/8/2020

Martin, all

I still have a problem with the gradient shading of the “blue” ovals. I like the idea of a gradient to suggest the “fuzziness” but hate the aesthetics of the current representation.

Attached is an alternative suggestion. I have it as a PPTX file as well.

Posted by Christian-Emil on 5/8/2020

Dear all,

I have not commented on the figure 3. In my view one should not put too much  symbolism and semantics into such a complex figure. However, I agree with Stephen and think his alternative is better from an aesthetical point of view.

Posted by Martin on 7/08/2020

My graphics designer is on strike now, v4

Any comments to my text??
 

Posted by Thanasis on 10/08/2020

I like this option, but is the problem aesthetics or convention of what
the gradient symbolises? To be truly fuzzy, it should blend with the
white background not have a hard border, correct? See the difference
with the attached (1) (2). The gradient/fuzziness does not indicate probability,
correct?