Issue 332: Properties of S10 Material Substantial of CRMsci

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 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 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 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.

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 CRMinf

·        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 Athina on 11/1/2018

<HW>

Please find attached a version of CRMsci with my HW

In the 40th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 33nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed part of the comments and the examples about the classes of CRMsci provided by Thanasis and Athina.The outcome is

S1 Matter Removal: crm accepted the editorial changes in the example   

S2 Sample Taking: Examples of S2 provided by Thanasis are accepted. Thanasis should provide bibiographic references

S3 Measurement by Sampling: changes made to scope note. HW assigned to TV to add identifying information for the particular measurement in gas chromotography example. MD should revise the  phrase in yellow.

S4 Observation: the review of the definition of this class has been postponed.

S5 Inference Making: The sig reviewed and accepted the examples. Thanasis should provide reference for cupid example. The examination of the relation this class with I5 Iference Making of  crm-sig has been postponed until reconsideration of S4 Observation.

S6 Data Evaluation: The examples accepted but reference needed for Ancient Messini example. This is assigned to TV. Also it is assigned to TV and MD, to take examples from laser department of FORTH

NEW ISSUE: The crm-sig discussed about the TV's comment that  we need a property to link S6 with the data with which we make the calculation, decided to open new issue to formulate the belief conditions for the input data of the data evaluation process. Need to add a link of input data AND this has to be connceted to CRMdig.

S7 Simulation or Prediction: The examples are accepted and asked TV to add reference  for st Catherine example. Also the crm-sig argued that we should add an example of a what if simulation, inputs and outputs are fictitious but comparable to reality. It would be a good idea to add agent based model in CH, Or example from Sahara. It is assigned OE and/or SS.

S8 Categorical Hypothesis Building: The fictitious example is deleted, the example Hypothessizing is accepted. TV should add reference to it.

S9 Property Type: It is postponed, it should be considered together with the issue related to redoing S4

S10 Material Substantial: the examples are accepted.

S11 Amount of Matter: The sig considered the comment made by TV, that this class does not have any properties and it is difficult to see the difference with S10 from the scope note, explained that such an amount of matter, in order to be identifiable individual, requires a sort of confinement that supplies a constraint on the constellation of matter and its stability of form which, in practical terms, could be a bottle. In addition, the sig took the decision to add a phrase to encapsulate the above explanation in the S11 scope note. This HW is assigned to MD. The examples are accepted.

S12 Amount of Fluid: The current example is accepted, but the sig asked MD to add Armstrong example.

S13 Sample:The examples are accepted. TV should give a reference for the second example.

S14 Fluid Body: The sig rejected the fictitious example. Added the river. In addition, we should add a reference to the geological definition on which this class is modelled.

S15 Observable Entity: It is postponed because the whole entity is under review.

S17 Physical Genesis: sig accepted the examples. TV should give reference to his sampling example. (Athina should check the comments)

S18 Alteration: The examples are accepted. TV should add ref for example 2

S19 Encounter Event: Decision: accepted by for adding references and the name of the trawler (Athina should check the comments)

S20 Rigid Physical Feature: sig accepted the examples but asked Athina to improve the syntax of 4th example.

S21 Measurement: The Generic example is rejected and it is decided that we need real examples from laser department at FORTH

S22 Segment of Matter: the sig reviewd the scope note and decised to ask SS and MD to elaborate it further up to the next meeting. The example is rejected. We need an example of a ‘baulk’ from an archaeological record

The draft text of the discussion is here

Cologne, January 2018

Posted by Martijn van Leusen  on 9/4/2018

Posted by martin on 10/4/2018

Dear All,

By the way, an interesting aspect of samples is that they can be split without loosing their identity. Obviously, there is
some complexity in the object-ness of the sample versus its substance. Tracing split samples is a practical issue in labs.

Any thoughts?

Posted by Martin on 10/4/2018

Dear Daria,

This is a much debated question. I follow the theory of David Wiggins (Sameness and Substance Renewed (Cambridge, 2001)), which appears to me to be consistent. There is no natural identity to something material. We need to specify under which category we consider some matter. The category must provide identity criteria beforehand. The same matter may participate in different "things" of different identity. The identity conditions of a category must serve a purpose.
The purpose is identified by a question.

So, question: "Is this an original Varsari? " could be defined in terms of the actual matter Varsari had in his hands and the way he gave it artistic shape, regardless later modifications. We could define the end of existence when major parts of the paint layer are lost, or when the last major part is lost, or latest, when the whole paint layer is lost.

This category of "original painting" would "answer": "still the same".
Another definition may be based on phases and degrees of replaced matter. But they easily run into problems with
environmentally caused degradation and natural decay of material, which is a continuous process. So, change of a
physical object is inevitable and continuous. It is much more prominent in living beings.

I would associate conservation states rather with secondary features of objects and not with their overall identity.
Again we need a definition of relevant traits separating one from the other.

I agree that physical objects can change form. This is why we talk about "relative stability". The specific type should determine which deviation of form is "unnatural","renders the object unusable", "destroyed" or whatever may determine its practical end of existence and transition into something else or disappearance.

Posted by Franco on 10/4/2018

Posted by Thanasis Velios on 11/4/2018

Posted by Franco on 11/4/2018

Posted by Martin 21/4/2018

Posted by Martin 11/5/2018

Dear All,

Here my rework.

Old scope note:
S22 Segment of Matter  

Subclass of:         S20 Physical Feature

Scope Note:        This class comprises physical features in a relative stability of form within a specific spacetime volume. The spatial extent of an instance of S22 Segment of Matter is defined by humans usually because the geometric arrangement of physical features or parts of them on or within it are of interest. An instance of S22 Segment of Matter exists as long as there is no modification of the geometric arrangement of its parts. Therefore the temporal boundaries of the defining spacetime volume are given by two S18 Alteration events. It comes into existence as being an object of discourse through an instance of S4 Observation or declaration and is restricted to the time span starting after the last change caused by an instance of S18 Alteration before the observation or declaration and ending with an instance of another S18 Alteration Event.

The history of a S22 Segment of Matter started with a S17 Physical Genesis event that deposited still existing matter within the defined spatial extent. The collection of all S18 Alteration events represent its history. Some of the events will not leave any physical material within the S22 Segment of Matter.

In other words, this is a fiat object (B. Smith sense) that has declarative boundaries in 3 dimensions but natural boundaries in time (the 4th dimension).

NEW SCOPE NOTE:

S22 Segment of Matter  

Subclass of:         S20 Physical Feature

Scope Note:        This class comprises physical features with relative stability of form and structure within a declared spatial volume of interest. The spatial extend of an instance of S22 Segment of Matter may be declared defined by a researcher or observer usually because the  arrangement and composition of substance is characteristic for the surrounding matter or can be interpreted as traces of its genesis and subsequent internal and external processes it was exposed to. The defining spatial extend is typically declared on a continuous matter by means of geometric determination without observable boundaries on all sides or any side. It may however be extracted at some point in time along the declared boundaries.

An instance of S22 Segment of Matter is regarded to be existing from the time on it completely consolidated in a solid form and structure that still preserved in a recognizable way at the time of spatial definition. Its existence is regarded to end when its respective integrity is partially or completely corrupted. Uncorrupted subsections of an instance of S22 Segment of Matter may continue to exist as segments of matter in their own right beyond the existence of the containing instance, and may have consolidated before it.

Typical examples are segments of archaeological or geological layers. They are regarded as uncorrupted even if they have undergone conformal deformations, such as compressions or shifts, as long as the effects of these deformations do not destroy the relevant structures of interest. This means that the defining spatial volume may be only geometrically valid for an instant of time for which it was declared, and undergo before and after deformations. In some cases it may be possible to calculate the initial volume at consolidation time, for instance for petrified bones compressed in Jurassic layers.

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 and made changes  to the following: 

S11:   made minor changes  and accepted. It is assigned to Martin to check compatibility with DOLCE.

S22: made minor changes   and accepted. 

S2 Sample Taking is be regarded as subclass of E63 Beginning of Existence, and O5 removed is subproperty of P92 brought into existence

S13 Sample:  HW assigned to TV about  considering  when/how the identity of split samples inherit/preserve the identity conditions from the original sample. Articulate chain of logical properties for associating sub-sampling to original object.

O4 sampled at (was sampling location of):  made the appropriate changes and accepted the scope note.

The minutes and the revised scope notes are here

Lyon, May 2018

Posted by Thanasis on 12/11/2018

I spoke to a couple of colleagues and spent a bit of time on the issue of identity for split samples. In practice (at least in conservation) it seems that a sub-sample is normally given a new identifier.

Typically different characteristics are measured on the sub-sample. Measuring the same characteristics means we are talking about different samples to be compared. There is no explicit statement on whether samples are sharing

characteristics in the data but this is often captured in publications. I think we have two cases:

a) Sub-samples which come from heterogenous/unstable samples (relative to scale) therefore characteristics are not shared.

b) Sub-samples which come from homogenous/stable samples (again relative to scale) therefore characteristics are shared.

A sub-sample can be modelled as a new sample taken from the original sample with an S2 Sampling event which results in different S11 Amount
of Matter. Provenance can be tracked through the sampling events. The sampling action alone does not guarantee that samples share
characteristics and therefore I think that we cannot guarantee that the identity condition remains after splitting the sample. A sub-sample is
always different to the original sample. If we want to state that the two samples share characteristics, then perhaps a new sub-property of
O25 is needed:

S13 Sample : Oxx shares characteristics with : S13 Sample

See attachment for a drawing.

I hope I have not retracted from the thinking during the last CRM-SIG.

Posted by Athina on 2/4/2019

Dear all,

 I found this reference http://joey711.github.io/phyloseq/  and this https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0061217  about a tool named phyloseq. It is described as a set of classes, wrappers, and tools (in R) to make it easier to import, store, and analyze phylogenetic sequencing data; and to reproducibly share that data and analysis with others.
This might help to understand better or find more cases about processes we describe in CRM sci.

For instance, there is a specific description  https://rdrr.io/bioc/phyloseq/man/merge_samples-methods.html about merging samples, so I am not sure if there is also a need for an extra link   "merged" sample in CRM sci, such the one that Thanasis proposed (split) in the recent sig meeting. Probably we need more data from the biologists domain, in order to confirm that.
So regard this as an information I wanted to share, relating to S2 Sample Taking 

In the 44th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 37th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting,the sig reviewed the HW by TV regarding the new property to be introduced in CRMsci, namely Oxx split from [D:S2 Sample Taking, R:S13 Sample]. The scope note for the property was accepted. 
HW: The sig appointed TV and RS to provide examples. 

Paris, June 2019

Posted by Thanasis Velios on 17/10/2019

This is to provide an example from conservation of the use of CRMsci property Oxx split [D:S2 Sample Taking, R:S13 Sample]:

-------------------------------
The activity (S2 Sample Taking) of removing fibers from the sample (S13 Sample) of Japanese Kozo hand-made paper [with dimensions 20cm×3cm], which was originally taken from the inside structure of a Japanese sliding screen and used for non-destructive spectral imaging, produced (Oxx split) the new sample of fibers (S13 Sample) [with sub-milimeter dimensions], used for destructive fiber identification.
------------------------------- 

Posted by Thanasis on 6/2/2020

Dear all,

In the last meeting I was asked to revise the scope note for O27 split and provide a more specific example for it. Please consider these:

Old scope note

This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with an instance of S13 Sample that was removed during this activity. The resulting S13 Sample maintains the characteristic qualities of the the instance of S10 Material Substantial that the sample was taken from. This property should be used to model cases when a homogenous sample is split into multiple ones.

Revised scope note

This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with an instance of S13 Sample that was removed during this activity. The resulting S13 Sample maintains the characteristic qualities of the instance of S10 Material Substantial (i.e. the original sample) that the new sample was taken from. This supports reasoning that the new sample retains/preserves the characteristic qualities of the original sample. Any observations of these qualities made on the new sample also apply to the original one. This property should be used to model cases when a homogenous sample is split into multiple ones.

New example (with recommended introduction):

In 2000, Godfrey et al. [1] took a sample from a section of the tusk fragment GT993 which was originally found in the ship-wreck of Vergulde Draeck in Western Australia. This sample was homogenous (ground to fine powder). Part of the sample was then removed for elemental analysis using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). Another part was removed for carbon/nitrogen analysis using a LECO analyser.

The activity (S2) of removing a part from the sample (S13), which was originally taken from the tusk fragment GT993 by Godfrey et al. in 2000, *split* the sample to create a new one (S13) for ICP-AES analysis in order to reveal the composition of the original sample.

[1]  I.M. Godfrey, E.L. Ghisalberti, E.W. Beng, L.T. Byrne & G.W. Richardson (2002) The Analysis of Ivory from a Marine Environment, Studies in Conservation, 47:1, 29-45, DOI: 10.1179/sic.2002.47.1.29 

Posted by Thanasis on 22/02/2021

During the last SIG I was asked to reformulate some homework around splitting samples for CRMsci. This included creating a new class and two new properties (one of them from the revised homework). Please find this new homework attached here (.odt) (.docx).

In the 50th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 43nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, The SIG reviewed HW by TV. 

HW involved: 

• redrafting the scope-note and examples for S24 Sample Splitting
• redrafting the scope note for S27 split (was source for)
• defining the new property O29 removed sub-sample (was removed by). 

Decision: HW accepted. Details here.

June 2021