Conflict between Image and Imaging Instrument definitions

[gregfowlerphd]

The definition for the former class reads:

An Information Bearing Artifact that is designed to carry an Information Content Entity that represents some entity owing to a visual isomorphism between the carrying artifact and the entity.

However, the definition for the latter--

A Material Artifact that is designed to produce images (visual representations) of an entity.

--appears to contain a different definition of the term ‘image’, according to which an image is simply a visual representation.

Presumably this sort of conflict ought to be avoided. Perhaps in this case this can be done by modifying the Imaging Instrument definition as follows:

A Material Artifact that is designed to produce Images of an entity.

[APCox]

@jordancundiff

[jordancundiff]

I tend to agree with this suggestion.

[alanruttenberg]

Is a television an imaging instrument?

[alanruttenberg]

Is a instrument display panel an imaging instrument?

[jordancundiff]

Good points, Alan. I think that we might think that they are. I mean, if we were to break down the television into its component parts, there is more nuance to this, but if we're thinking about a television generally, I think that we could consider it an imagining instrument. One distinction could be that a television receives images from an imaging instrument and displays such images (the television displays what is produced by the camera), so that could be one important difference. I think an instrument display panel is something different. There's a type of translation or interpretation being done there that's not the same as an image of an entity. (A speedometer or odometer for instance aren't images but are translations / derivations; I think Instrument Display Panel is better as a subclass of IBA.) But, your point about a television is well taken and I am not sure about that. I think that if a camera is an imaging instrument then it seems on a surface level that a television might be as well, but again, I'm not sure that the distinction that I brought up is sound or not.

[alanruttenberg]

I usually associate the word "imaging" with capturing of light, whereas "display" the emission of light. I think if we want imaging instrument to included both, I'd either add something like "computer monitor" as a subclass of it, or mention it as an example.
To take it to an extreme, is a printed piece of paper an imaging instrument? It certainly qualifies as a display.

[alanruttenberg]

An imaging instrument might have a part that is a display, as with touch screen display used to frame and focus

[alanruttenberg]

I think it could go either way - displays as subclasses of imaging instrument, or as siblings. I just think the document should make whichever choice is made is clear.

[swartik]

"Television" is not the right example artifact. We tend to think of television in terms of what it adds to radio, namely display of images, but a monitor without sound is not what most of us think of as television.

[alanruttenberg]

Television is a perfectly fine example. Something can be built to do two things - have two functions. One of the functions of the television is to display an image.