Issue 392: Design or Procedure and Physical Things
Posted by Thanasis on 9/8/2018
With the usual apologies for possibly having misunderstood or missed something. I propose that the scope note of E29 Design or Procedure
"... In particular it comprises plans for deliberate human activities that may result in the modification or production of instances of *E24 Physical Thing*..."
"... In particular it comprises plans for deliberate human activities that may result in new instances of *E71 Man-Made Thing or E7 Activity*..."
Reason for including E7:
One of the current examples under E29 is:
"the musical notation for Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy”"
I do not see how the musical notation can result in the production of a physical thing. Also I think it is a contradiction to "P33 used specific technique" for which the domain is E7 Activity (and also to F25
Performance Plan which is a sub-class of E29 Design or Procedure).
Reason for including E71:
Consider the example of using a digital camera. I setup the camera following instructions. But when I shoot the image (as explained in CRMdig) I create a new information object and not a physical thing.
Note: The current scope note says "may", but I take this to mean that a physical thing may or may not be produced, and not that it may or may not be a physical thing (i.e. to be something entirely different).
All the best,
Posted by Robert Sanderson on 9/8/2018
It seems to me that the Activity of performing the music described in the notation is the activity that has the P33_used_specific_technique relationship to the E29.
_:performance a E7_Activity ;
p14_carried_out_by <san_francisco_symphony_orchestra> ;
p16_used_specific_object <sfs_copy_of_score> ;
a E29_Design_or_Procedure ;
rdfs:label “Ode to Joy” ;
p128i_is_carried_by <sfs_copy_of_score> ] .
If that activity creates something, then it must be at least a E71 Man-Made Thing as all activities are carried out by Men. I mean humans. [I will leave the sexist language of the labels to a separate issue] I agree that E29 could refer to E71 rather than E24 – a set of design principles for reflecting upon the CRM ontology is a plan for creating conceptual objects. As is a mathematics lesson plan or a philosophy text book.
As to whether a performance is a physical or conceptual man-made thing …
To me, a performance as an entity that is created by the activity of playing a musical instrument or singing is a very transitory physical phenomenon, notably the modulation of air pressure into sound waves that can be measured and captured by analog or digital devices. The same way that we can photograph an object by recording its reflected light, we can record a performance by recording its sound waves. We then replay the performance by replaying the sound, in the same way as we replay a photograph by looking at the light it reflects. The notion of persistence in E24 is inherited from E77, where it is clarified as persistent identity, not persistent form or state. If the performance was a conceptual object, then it would not be able to be recorded, only described. The “conceptual performance” is the equivalent of the E36 Visual Item – the same “Coca-Cola logo” exists in all physical objects that show the visual item. I would thus add Exx_Auditory_Item to mirror E36. One might then have an additional subclass of both E36 and Exx to represent performances more generally, where the visual and auditory aspects are both represented, such as theatre or dance, or that might be captured by video-recording the orchestra rather than just recording the sound.
Posted by Martin on 9/8/2018
Firstly I agree with Thanasis. The text is obsolete, because the things we first considered were museum objects.
Secondly, we do not require by "in particular it may" to have a product at all". A technique may indeed only shape an activity, regardless if leaves a persistent item behind or not.
Performances are explicitly described in FRBRoo, and should not be regarded as "things produced". This would mess up the distinction between doing and being, which is absolutely core.
I think "a performance as an entity that is created by the activity of playing" is a recursion on the same thing: The performance IS the activity of playing, and not a distinct thing created by playing, according to all common sense. A performance is "on-going", and not "present", at least in common language, and therefore a Temporal Entity.
Similarly :"... In particular it comprises plans for deliberate human activities
that may result in new instances of *E71 Man-Made Thing or E7 Activity*..."
I think "or E7 Activity" must not be there: "... human activities
that may result in new instances ...of E7 Activity " appears odd to me. What causality? We have discussed in length in the past that it is not easy to draw border lines to which degree a plan constrains the execution to a particular form or not.
I suggest : ""... In particular it comprises plans for deliberate human activities
that may result in new instances of *E71 Man-Made Thing or for shaping or guiding the execution of instance of E7 Activity*..."