It feels like a pedagogical issue. The person _may_ have only read the one scope note and felt that probably that works and done it like that.
Obviously that's complex to figure out how to help the learner make better choices. One long standing ongoing effort is to update the 'use and learn' material and specifically the diagrams describing aspects of the model. This is the issue here: https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-628-update-the-modelling-constructs-found-under-the-modeluselearnfunctional-overview We are actually very advanced now thanks to many collaborative contributions to having a full updated set of these diagrams that match 7.1.3. They are done in draw.io and use the libraries developed by CHIN. What we lack however are good texts for describing the diagrams. In the particular case that you are looking at there are two diagrams: Part and Component Information and Location Information which when published on the site and accompanied by useful pedagogical text might be a help to the learner. We are looking for volunteers to help write these texts. Another interesting tool available is the draw.io validator created by FORTH. If the learner had their data in draw.io they could validate it and find that they had chosen a wrong property (I think). Of course this could be done with many different tools! On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 12:34 PM Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote: > I think this is not the only scope note where one refers to instances that > should better be modelled by a sub class. On the other hand it is a leading > principle that one should not refer explicitly to subclasses in the > definition of a class. Maybe this is just an ideal and not followed in > practice? > C-E > > ------------------------------ > *Fra:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> på vegne av Dominic Oldman > via Crm-sig <[email protected]> > *Sendt:* onsdag 10. desember 2025 11:20 > *Til:* George Bruseker <[email protected]> > *Kopi:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Emne:* Re: [Crm-sig] E24 Physical Human -Made Thing > > Yes, my point was not about the difference but more about the scope note. > The reason I brought this up is because I saw an example of the confusion > and it made me wonder whether this came from a reading of the scope note. > > D > > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 at 09:58, George Bruseker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Maybe a more useful way to say it is that it’s a class that allows you to > talk about either a physical thing that is movable or that is not but does > not yet allow you to talk about its relations such as being movable or not. > For that further detail you need a more precise class. > > George Bruseker, PhD > Chief Executive Officer > Takin.solutions Ltd. > https://www.takin.solutions/ > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 10:49 AM George Bruseker < > [email protected]> wrote: > > 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
