Issue 332: Properties of S10 Material Substantial of CRMsci

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

 

In the 38th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 31st FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig did not accepted the  request of moving P44 and P45 to E18. It is proposed to discuss with Carlo on FOL model of relation constraints and CEO to consider how to create a logical construct that will model evolution of knowledge/expansion of domain range.  

Heraklion, April 2017

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 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 Robert Sanderson 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 20/7/2017

On 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.

Posted by Martin on 5/10/2017

This is my homework

 

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 CRMsci

·        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 Thanasis on 11/1/2018

<HW>


Please find attached a version with a few more examples from conservation, additions, changes and comments. I have not been involved from the beginning of the discussions for CRMsci, so if I am asking questions with obvious answers, please ignore them and I will catch up (eventually).

Some recurrent points:

1) Since the extension document is clearly linked to CRM core, I think that a lot of the narrative and explanation of the document conventions can be removed. One would be expected to have to refer to the main document and really work with both side-by-side. At the moment apart from the document becoming too long, we also run the risk of versions of text going out of sync.

2) There are repeated classes in various extensions and some which are almost the same but not quite. For newcomers (and I include myself) this is confusing. When I map to CRM core and CRMsci on 3M, I am offered two classes which appear identical and sometimes they are, in which case which one do I choose? Sorry, this is not a proposal. 

posted by Athina on 11/1/2018

<HW>

Please find attached a version of CRMsci with my HW

 

 

posted by Athina on 12/1/2018

In the attached version, I deleted the red marked text, I added Thanasis proposals (with grey highlighted text)  and mine proposals (with pink highlighted text) and also I made additions afterwards.

 

 

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 Martin on 30/3/2018

S11 Amount of Matter[1] 
 
Subclass of:         S10 Material Substantial
 
Superclass of:      S12 Amount of Fluid
 
                           S13 Sample
 
Scope note:         This class comprises fixed amounts of matter specified as some air, some water, some soil, etc., defined by the total and integrity of their material content. In order to be able to identify and recognize in practice one instance of S11 Amount of Matter, some sort of confinement is needed that serves as a constraint for the enclosed matter and the integrity of the content, such as a bottle. In contrast to instances of E18 Physical Thing, no stability of form is required. The content may be put into another bottle without loosing its identity. Subclasses may define very different identity conditions for the integrity of the content, such as chemical composition, or the sequence of layers of a bore core. Whereas an instance of E18 Physical Thing may gradually change form and chemical composition preserving its identity, such as living beings, an instance of S11 Amount of Matter may loose its identifying features by such processes. What matters for the identity of an instance of S1 Amount of Matter is the preservation of a relevant composition from the initial state of definition on.

Posted by Martijn van Leusen  on 9/4/2018

"no stability of form is required" would exclude some types of samples, e.g. kubiena tin samples taken for microstratigraphy, palynology, or paleomagnetism. I would advise excising this phrase.
Martijn

Posted by Martin on 10/4/2018

A better formulation is always welcome!
 
Logically, it is correct: "no stability of form is required" does NOT exclude stability of form. I give explicitly the example "the sequence of layers of a bore core". The point is, that we take a sample for a particular feature it will be a witness for. The identity of the sample and its duration of existence as a sample depends on the kind of feature that needs to be preserved, be it a stratigraphy, a chemical composition or whatever. Consequently, it can be diminished quite substanstially without loosing this identity, whereas other impacts may not change its discreteness as a stable piece of matter, but destroy the relevant composition.
 
Proposals welcome.

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 Daria Hookk on 10/4/2018
 
Maybe I am not right, but a state of conservation is under discussion. "Vasari" before of after restoration. Is it the same identity? Same Vasari, artefact could change form but we tell about it "the same item". 
 

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

Dear all,
 

I agree with Martin that the current scope note is formally correct: "no stability of form required", means that form may need to remain stable or it is not relevant for the experiment.

 
The reason is that for a sample the identity criteria may not concern the form, and possibly they also may not concern volume, weight, colour, etc. A sample is characterized by some property which enables the experimenter to consider the sample as representative of something else, usually (but not necessarily) a larger thing. 
So it is not strange at all that in some cases one may split a sample into two (or more) smaller parts, each one still being a (the?) sample; in other cases this is impossible. “Splittable” samples are chosen because they represent some characteristic of the Amount of Matter from which they are *selected* for which the volume is not relevant. 
For example, to analyze a large quantity of water one may take one dl (0.1 l). But also dividing that sample into 10 parts, the 1 cc (0.01 l) sample(s) is still the (same) sample. One might think to indefinitely continue the splitting process (if they have nothing better to do) as long as the chemical properties remain the same. But, when ideally the splitting arrives to the molecule level, further splitting must stop or the sample is lost. So indefinite sample “splittability” is not an absolute property even for those “splittable” samples, but may need to stop at some point, where further splitting the sample does not produce additional samples, it simply destroys it.
 
I would say that what counts for being a sample is how you regard it: the nose of Michelangelo's David may be a sample of the marble, or simply be a detached piece of the statue which one may consider from an artistic perceptive as an individual cultural object. In either case, please do not remove it from the statue.
 
There are actually cases in which the identity characteristics of the sample do not require physically removing it from the object it is part of. Here are some techniques that do not require physical sample detachment
 
- photography (visible light, UV, IR)
- radiography
- ecography
- tomography
- XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence)
- multispectral analysis
- colorimetry
- infrared reflectography
 
This is why some time ago I argued against the use of the verb “remove” or “take" in the S13 scope note. In the above cases, no removing is required, and that’s why restorers prefer such techniques to those requiring destruction of a (small) piece of the artefact. I would better use “select” as quick-and-dirty solution.
 
Exercise: define the identity criteri for the above technologies and check if the sample is splittable, and if so where splitting must stop before destroying the sample.
 
Best
 
Franco
 
By the way, the S11 scope note text is a bit cryptic: "with the intention to be representative for some material qualities of the instance of S10 Material Substantial or part of it was taken from for further analysis"
there should at least be a comma after “of” and “from” (or the sentence should be rephrased), and why “further" analysis? 
Maybe: "with the intention to be representative for some material qualities of the instance of S10 Material Substantial or part of it, from which it was taken for analysis"

Posted by Franco on 10/4/2018

Again agree with Martin (what’s happening to me?) and like Wiggins, I have a copy of it on my night table for night meditation.
 
In my opinion the issue raised by Daria belongs to the category of the Ship of Theseus paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)

Posted by Martijn van Leusen  on 10/4/2018

I stand corrected!

Posted by Thanasis Velios on 11/4/2018

I broadly agree with the points made in the discussion:
 
1) If interventive conservation work changes the identity of an object
then it has failed. If anything, conservation work should maintain the
identity of the object.
 
2) Destructive testing in conservation requires a sample.
Non-destructive testing, such as taking a photo under UV or IR light,
does not require a sample. I think S13 has to be defined as "taken/removed".

Posted by Christian Emil on 11/4/2018

Hi
To get some intuiton here:
I workde with a database for a limnological collection of water samples from Norwegian streams. The water samples are store in small sample tubes. The form of the tube is not of interest. The sample is messured in milliliters. Does such a sample have a stable form? If the sample is frozen (in a an elastic tube),is it the same sample?
 

Posted by Franco on 11/4/2018

Form is irrelevant here as it does not relate to chemical-physical-biological properties of the sample.
Freezing may be a concern because it can kill bacteria so change one of the characteristics of a limnological sample. For other analyses, each one has a range of temperatures for validity, specified in its protocol. Probably 0 C is not in this range for most of the analyses.
In conclusion, don’t take limnological samples in winter, especially in Norway. Stay home and watch old movies on TV, or play with ontologies.
 

Posted by Christian - Emil on 11/4/2018

As you may know, Franco, fresh water has the highest density around 4 degrees celcius, which is the reason lakes do not become ice blocks and rivers and streems do normally not become ice neither in the Alps nor in Norway.
 
I have read the scope notes which I should have done. A sample is a physical thing (stuff). The instances of the classes 
S10 Material Substantial
S11 Amount of Matter
S12 Amount of Fluid
S14 Fluid Body
 
are all physical stuff.  Instances of S13 Sample on the other hand, are "taken from some instance of S10 Material Substantial with the intention to be representative for some material qualities ​".  
 
In an archeaological excavation finds may be modelled as physical objects, not as archeological finds. It is the circumstances, the event. which define the context. 
 
A sample a result of a controlled sample taking event.  My question is: Is it correct to define a separate class for samples?  Is it correct to include the intention of the creation of a physical thing into the thing itself?
 
 

Posted by Martin 21/4/2018

Dear Franco,
 
I agree in all points and with your later messages, only, I would not talk about a sample when the material stays in situ. I'd just describe it with another class, and exclude this sense from the definition. I'd say we measure properties in some area of the object, because the further history is that of the whole object. The "sample area" is not particularly protected. Therefore I do not see an individuality to the sampling area.
 
The splitting is interesting, because then we have a unit of matter that makes its own history, but the "sampleness" goes back to the initial removal. Since this is frequent practice, we need to think about the identity and unity criteria. Probably we need a transitive property of its own. If we have a bore core, we can split it along the drilling direction. If it is liquid or powder, direction doesn't matter.
 
Any good idea?

Posted by Thanasis on 2/4/2018

Please find attached the current draft of CRMsci following changes by Athina and myself. We have stopped working on this now, so feel free to make further changes and circulate new versions. So far, we have made changes in a sequence to avoid producing multiple simultaneous versions.

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.

Posted by Martin on 12/5/2018

Dear All,

Here my rephrasing.
Current version:

S3 Measurement by Sampling

Subclass of:         S2 Sample Taking

                           S21 Measurement

Scope note:         This class comprises activities of taking a sample and measuring or analyzing it as one unit of activity, in which the sample is typically not identified and preserved beyond the context of this activity. Instances of this class are constrained to describe the taking of exactly one sample and the dimensions observed by the respective measurement are implicitly understood to describe this particular sample as representative of the place on the instance of S10 Material Substantial from which the sample was taken. Therefore the class S3 Measurement by Sampling inherits the properties of S2 Sample Taking. O3 sampled from: S10 Material Substantial and O4 sampled at: E53 Place, and the properties of S21(E16) Measurement. P40 observed dimension: E54 Dimension, due to multiple inheritance. It needs not instantiate the properties O5 removed: S13 Sample and O24 measured: S15 Observable Entity, if the sample is not documented beyond the context of the activity.

New version:

S3 Measurement by Sampling

Subclass of:         S2 Sample Taking

                           S21 Measurement

Scope note:         This class comprises activities of taking a sample and measuring or analyzing it as one unit of activity, in which the sample is typically not identified and preserved beyond the context of this activity. Instances of this class describe the taking of one or more samples regardless whether they are explicitly identified in documentation or preserved beyond this activity. The dimensions observed by the respective measurement of this particular sample are regarded a dimensions of the instance of S10 Material Substantial at the place from which the samples were taken. Therefore the class S3 Measurement by Sampling inherits the properties of S2 Sample Taking. O3 sampled from: S10 Material Substantial and O4 sampled at: E53 Place, and the properties of S21(E16) Measurement. P40 observed dimension: E54 Dimension, due to multiple inheritance. It needs not instantiate the properties O5 removed: S13 Sample and O24 measured: S15 Observable Entity, if the sample is not documented beyond the context of the activity.

Further:

S2 Sample Taking should be regarded as subclass of Beginning of Existence, and O5 removed a subproperty of brought into existence.

Current Scope Note of O4:
O4 sampled at (was sampling location of)

Domain:              S2 Sample Taking

Range:                 E53 Place

Quantification:    many to many (1,n:0,n)

If more than one place is given they should contain each other.

Scope note:         This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with the instance of E53 Place at which this activity sampled. It identifies the position on the material substantial from which the sample was taken. This may be known or given in absolute terms or relative to an instance of the material substantial from which it was taken. It describes the position within the area in which the sampling activity occurred; this latter comprises the space within which operators and instruments were contained during the activity.
New Scope Note

Domain:              S2 Sample Taking

Range:                 E53 Place

Quantification:    many to many (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:         This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with instances of E53 Place ("spots") at which this activity sampled. It identifies the position on the material substantial from which the sample was taken. This may be known or given in absolute terms or relative to an instance of the material substantial from which it was taken. If one or more samples are taken from more than one spot, their properties must be regarded as average of the substantial at those spots or the samples are regarded as equivalent. Otherwise, the sample taking activity must documented by a separate instance for each spot.

                     The property P7 took place at, inherited from E4 Period, describes the position within the area in which the sampling activity occurred; this latter comprises the space within which operators and instruments were contained during the activity, and the sample taking spots.

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 Martin on 8/11/2018

S11 is compatible with DOLCE: (https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/DLP3941_daml.html)

"The common trait of amounts of matter is that they are endurants with no unity (according to Gangemi et a. 2001 none of them is an essential whole). Amounts of matter - 'stuffs' referred to by mass nouns like 'gold', 'iron', 'wood', 'sand', 'meat', etc. - are mereologically invariant, in the sense that they change their identity when they change some parts. The common trait of amounts of matter is that they are endurants with no unity (according to Gangemi et a. 2001 none of them is an essential whole). Amounts of matter - 'stuffs' referred to by mass nouns like 'gold', 'iron', 'wood', 'sand', 'meat', etc. - are mereologically invariant, in the sense that they change their identity when they change some parts."

S11 reads:

This class comprises fixed amounts of matter specified as some air, some water, some soil, etc., defined by the total and integrity of their material content. In order to be able to identify and recognize in practice one instance of S11 Amount of Matter, some sort of confinement is needed that serves as a constraint for the enclosed matter and the integrity of the content, such as a bottle. In contrast to instances of E18 Physical Thing, no stability of form is required. The content may be put into another bottle without loosing its identity. Subclasses may define very different identity conditions for the integrity of the content, such as chemical composition, or the sequence of layers of a bore core. Whereas an instance of E18 Physical Thing may gradually change form and chemical composition while preserving its identity, such as living beings, an instance of S11 Amount of Matter may lose its identifying features by such processes. What matters for the identity of an instance of S1 Amount of Matter is the preservation of a relevant composition from the initial state of definition onwards.
CRM is much more subtle...

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.

 

Reference to Issues: