Issue 505: Winkelmann Graphics- a prototype for diagrams exemplifying STVs and reasoning
This issue is αcontinuation of issue 459 & 471 and concerns the winkelmann graphic figure 3 of version 7.0
Chryssoula
September 2020
In the 47th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 40th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; MD: 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 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 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?
In the 48th CIDOC CRM and 41st FRBR CRM sig meeting (virtual), the sig accepted the proposal of MD of demonstrating the the instances of temporal entities connect things in spacetime and decided to include the STV diagram in the CIDOC CRM v7.1.
Also the sig assigned to Matteo Lorenzini to produce an animation that shows the graphic paths evolving as we have designed them in the spacetime diagram for didactic purposes.
October 2020
In the 57th CIDOC CRM & 50th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, the SIG resolved to close the issue.
What remains to be done is to provide an animation depicting the Winckelmann meets Laocoon example, but the HW has not been submitted since 2020. Furthermore, it does not have a bearing on the evolution of the ontology.
If there is an offer by someone else to provide an animation for the example, the SIG will start a new issue where to provide requirements and feedback.
Issue closed
Marseille, October 2023