The issue was just about the scope note and "objects and sword". I saw an example of E24 being used with E9 and I wondered whether the scope note was misleading. E24 says
"This class comprises, besides others, human-made objects, such as a sword, and human-made features, such as rock art." Thanks, Dominic On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 at 10:44, Franco Niccolucci <[email protected]> wrote: > Although I like "stuff" more than "thing" because it sounds more generic, > although they are more or less synonyms, here is a comment from the > Cambridge dictionary (see here > <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/thing-and-stuff> for > the complete text): > > *Thing* > > We use the general noun *thing* more commonly in speaking than in writing. > > It is most commonly used to *refer to physical objects*, but we also use > *thing* to refer to i*deas, actions and events* > > ... > > *Stuff* > > *Stuff* is one of the most common nouns in speaking. It is more informal > than *thing*. It is *not at all common in writing*. > > ... > In conclusion, there should be another word for the matter, as "thing" may > convey a dubious meaning and "stuff" is too colloquial and of difficult > translation in other languages ; in doubt, "thing" looks better to me. > In Italian I would use the term "cosa" which applies both to physical and > to immaterial things and translates either English terms; probably the same > happens to "chose" in French. > > Franco > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 11:14 AM Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear both, >> I early times before the first ISO version (pre 2004) the name of the >> class E70 Thing was E70 Stuff. It was changed because, according to Nick >> Crofts, the term 'stuff' could not be translated properly into French. If >> you check CIDOC CRM version 3.4.9 you will see that. Personally, I think >> that was a bad decision. Shakespeare writes "The stuff dreams are made >> of". "Thing" is a bad choice since it may be confused with "Object". >> >> Best, >> Christian-Emil >> ------------------------------ >> *Fra:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> på vegne av George >> Bruseker via Crm-sig <[email protected]> >> *Sendt:* onsdag 10. desember 2025 10:49 >> *Til:* Dominic Oldman <[email protected]> >> *Kopi:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >> *Emne:* Re: [Crm-sig] E24 Physical Human -Made Thing >> >> Dear Dominic, >> >> Yes this is as it should be. This class is the super set of the human >> made object and human made feature. As such its instances include both of >> its child classes’ instances. It represents what they share in common which >> is essentially being a physical kind of thing and being the kind of thing >> made by humans. It is also stated by the ontology that this then is from >> where you can begin to speak of representations. According to crm >> representations are only made by humans. >> >> So if you need to talk about things that are movable you hop down to e22 >> and if you are needing to make statements about things that are features >> hop down to e25. >> >> E24 is a class that likely isn’t invoked much directly but rather serves >> to support the representation of some things that are common in its child >> classes. >> >> Linked.art takes the decision to not split the hairs about whether a >> thing can be moved or not (since ultimately anything likely could be moved >> with a little imagination) and uses e22. But for some e25 serves useful >> purposes for indicating the physical objects that inhere in other objects. >> >> Is that helpful or addressing the direction of your question or did you >> have something else in mind? >> >> Best >> >> George >> >> George Bruseker, PhD >> Chief Executive Officer >> Takin.solutions Ltd. >> https://www.takin.solutions/ >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 10:17 AM Dominic Oldman via Crm-sig < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear SIG, >> >> The scope note for E24 says, >> >> "This class comprises all persistent physical items of any size that are >> purposely created by human activity. This class comprises, besides others, >> *human-made >> objects, such as a sword*, and human-made features, such as rock art. >> For example, a “cup and ring” carving on bedrockis regarded as an instance >> of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing." >> >> Is this right/misleading? >> >> If it includes objects then why can't they be moved? The note includes >> items that might be considered objects - they are usually defined in E22 or >> E18 - items which have "physical boundaries that separate them completely >> in an objective way from other objects." This explains the >> difference between a carving on a wall and a movable object. If the carving >> is cut out of the wall then it gets sound physical boundaries and can be >> moved. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dominic >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >> >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
